Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

THE PROJECT FOR FLOOD COUNTERMEASURES FOR THAILAND AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

IN THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND

FINAL REPORT

JULY 2013

Japan International Cooperation Agency

SANYU CONSULTANTS INC. NIPPON KOEI CO., LTD.

Abbreviations

ADB Asian Development Bank ADRC Asian Disaster Reduction Center AIT Asian Institute of Technology ALRO Agricultural Land Reform Office BAAC Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives BMA Bangkok Metropolitan Administration CBDRM Community-based Disaster Risk Management CDD Community Development Department C/P Counterpart CSR Corporate Social Responsibility DDPM Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation DDS Department of Drainage and Sewerage, BMA DEDP Department of Energy Development and Promotion DIW Department of Industrial Works DLD Department of Livestock Development DM Dry Matter DO Dissolved Oxygen DOA Department of Agriculture DOAE Department of Agricultural Extension DOF Department of Fishery DOH Department of Highway DOLA Department of Local Administration DPM Disaster Prevention and Mitigation DRM Disaster Risk Management DRMS Disaster Risk Management System DWR Department of Water Resources EGAT Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand E/S Engineering Service FAO Food and Agriculture Organization, UN FAORAP Regional office for Asia Pacific Food and Agricultural Organization FFC Flood Forecasting Center FROC Flood Relief Operations Center GAP Good Agricultural Practice GMP Good Manufacturing Practice GDP Gross Domestic Product GIS Geographic Information System GISTDA Geo-Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency GOT Government of the Kingdom of Thailand

GPS Global Positioning System HAII Hydro and Agro Informatics Institute HFA Hyogo Framework for Action ICHARM International Center for Water Hazard and Risk Management ICT Information and Communication Technology IEC Irrigation Engineering Center, RID IMPAC-T Integrated Study Project on Hydro-meteorological Prediction and Adaptation to Climate Change in Thailand JETRO The Japan External Trade Organization JBIC Japan Bank for International Cooperation JCC Joint Coordinating Committee JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency JV Joint Venture KMITL King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang KU Kasetsart University LAO Local Authority Organizations LDD Land Development Department LSIFP Large Swamp Inland Fishery Project LU Livestock Unit MCM Million Cubic Meter MI Ministry of Industry MOAC Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives MOI Ministry of Interior MONRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment MOT Ministry of Transport MOST Ministry of Science and Technology NDPMC National Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Committee NESDB National Economic and Social Development Board NEB National Environment Board NGOs Non-Government Organizations NSO National Statistic Office NWFPC National Water Resources and Flood Policy Committee OAE Office of Agricultural Economics OECF Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund, Japan O&M Operation and Maintenance ONWFMP Office of National Water and Flood Management Policy OPM Office of the Prime Minister OPS Office of the Permanent Secretary OSCWRM Office of Strategic Committee for Water Resources Management、 OTOP One Tambon One Product OTOS One Tambon One Search and rescue team PACO Provincial Agricultural Cooperative Office PAO Provincial Administration Office PLOs Provincial Livestock Offices PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal RRC Rice Research Center RD Rice Department RFD Royal Forest Department RID Royal Irrigation Department RIO Regional Irrigation Office ROAE Regional Office of Agricultural Economics RTG Royal Thai Government SCRFD Strategic Committee for Reconstruction and Future Development SCWRM Strategic Formulation Committee for Water Resources Management SSIFP Small Swamp Inland Fisheries Project SSIP Small Scale Irrigation Program SSIRP Small Scale Irrigation Improvement and Rehabilitation Project SWOT Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, and Threat TAO Tambon Administration Organization TF Task Force UNDP United Nations Development Program WFMC Water and Flood Management Committee WUG Water Users Group

Model Areas

CSS : Tambon Chum Saeng Songkhram, Bang Rakam District, Phitsanulok Province NPM : Tambon Nakhorn Pa Mak, Bang Kratum District, Phitsanulok Province WM : Tambon Wang Man, Wat Sing District, Chainat Province KK : Tambon Khao Kaeo, Sapphaya District, Chainat Province GC : Tambon Gop Chao, Bang Ban District, Ayutthaya Province SHN : Tambon Singhanat, Lat Bua Luang District, Ayutthaya Province KH : Tambon Khlong Ha, Khlong Luang District, Pathumthani Province NP : Tambon Naraphirom, Bang Len District, Nakhon Pathom Province

Measurement Units

(Length) (Time) mm : millimeter(s) s, sec : second(s) cm : centimeter(s) min : minute(s) m : meter(s) h, hr : hour(s) km : kilometer(s) d, dy : day(s) y, yr : year(s)

(Area) mm2 : square millimeter(s) (Volume) cm2 : square centimeter(s) cm3 : cubic centimeter(s) m2 : square meter(s) m3 : cubic meter(s) km2 : square kilometer(s) l, ltr : liter(s) ha : hectare(s) MCM : million cubic meter(s)

(Weight) (Speed/Velocity) g, gr : gram(s) cm/s : centimeter per second kg : kilogram(s) m/s : meter per second ton : ton(s) km/h : kilometer per hour

(Energy) (Money) MJ : Mega Joule(s) USD : US Dollar(s)

Currency Exchange Rate THB1.0 = JPY 3.352 (June, 2013) USD1.0 =JPY 101.30 (June, 2013)

The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Summary

A. Introduction 1. Background of the Project From the end of July 2011 and into 2012, Thailand experienced a massive flood in the Chao Phraya River basin, with vast areas submerged and significant after-effects on a scale that had not been experienced before in Thailand’s recent history. People living and working in this basin suffered from the huge scale of damage caused by this long-term inundation. Economic losses due to the flood and subsequent loss of work opportunities is estimated to be between 400 and 1,300 billion baht or more than 10% of GDP. Damages to agriculture have been reported to be as high as 72 billion baht.

In response, the Government of Thailand established two committees to deal with long-term measures; the Strategic Committee for Reconstruction and Future Development (SCRFD) and the Strategic Committee for Water Resources Management (SCWRM). The former has already approved a plan to invest 2,270 billion baht to construct basic infrastructure during the coming decade. The latter presented a plan to disburse 22.6 billion baht for short-term preventive measures in preparation for the coming rainy season in 2012, and 350 billion baht to take medium to long-term measures, including the delineation of flood water retention areas (paddy fields and swamps) and the construction of floodways.

The Government has so far provided only limited measures for the benefit of the agricultural sector which suffered heavy damages to over 1.44 million hectares of paddy fields, 36 thousand hectares of aquaculture ponds and a loss of 29.5 million head of livestock. These benefits are in the form of compensation for inundated farmland, free distribution of seed paddy, and the provision of animal feed in some affected areas. Thus, farmers who suffered flood damage continue to face difficulties due to the lack of effective measures to provide compensation for loss of major harvests or lost income opportunities.

Under these circumstances, JICA dispatched three preliminary study missions during November 2011 to January 2012, and decided to conduct this Project titled “Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector.”

2. Project Outputs The outputs of this project are: 1) recovery of productivity of damaged pastures, 2) guidelines on rehabilitation and reinforcement of irrigation facilities, and 3) guidelines on disaster-resilient agriculture and agricultural community planning. Thus, through this project, JICA provides support to both short-term and long-term efforts of the Government of Thailand in the agricultural sector.

3. Project Study Areas The study areas under this Project include the watershed of Chao Phraya River as the main-stream basin, the Yom River basin where severe damage was caused by the 2011 flood, a part of the Nan River basin and Pa Sak River basin and Tha Chin River basin. The flood caused damages in 63 provinces (changwat) out of 77, including northern and northeastern parts of the country. This Project targets the areas in upper stream of Chao Phraya River and the Chao Phraya Delta in central region.

1 / 29 Summary The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

4. The 2011 Flood Disaster According to a 2012 ADRC study; severe flooding occurred during the 2011 monsoon season in Thailand. Beginning at the end of July triggered by the landfall of Tropical Storm Nock-Ten, flooding soon spread through the provinces of Northern, Northeastern and Central Thailand along the Mekong and Chao Phraya basins. In October, flood waters reached the mouth of the Chao Phraya and inundated parts of the capital city of Bangkok. Flooding persisted in some areas until mid-January 2012, and resulted in a total of 815 deaths (as of Jan 17, 2012) (with 3 missing) and 13.6 million people in 4 regions affected. Sixty-five of Thailand’s 77 provinces were declared flood disaster zones, and over 20,000 square kilometers (7,700 sq mi.) of farm land was damaged. The disaster has been described as ‘the worst flooding yet in terms of the amount of water and people affected.’

The World Bank has estimated 1,425 billion baht (US$ 45.7 billion) in economic damages and losses due to flooding, as of December 1st, 2011. Most of this was to the manufacturing industry, as seven major industrial estates were inundated by as much as 3 meters (10 feet) during the floods.” If the total economic loss caused by the 2011 flood in the agricultural sector is estimated at 72 billion baht, as announced by OAE in November 2011, then it corresponds to 5% of the total national damage. In order to reduce the economic damage from floods, it is essential to protect the highly economic area of industrial estates. While the scale of the total damage incurred by the 2011 flood was exceptionally large, flood-prone areas of the country experience damage from flooding regularly, one or twice every several years. For instance, flood-related damage in 2011 was comparable to that in 2006 and 2010 for many flood-prone areas in this Project’s Study Area. Therefore, for people in these areas who live with floods, it is particularly vital for them to have plans for water management, farming and improved livelihoods.

5. Summary of the 2001 Flood Damage in Agricultural Sector Damages in the agricultural sector by 2011 Flood Disaster are summarized as below:

 Out of a total 77 provinces in Thailand, 65 provinces were damaged by the 2011 flood.  Nationwide, 1.09 million farmers were affected and 10.6 million rai (1.7 million ha) of farm land was damaged.  In the crop sub-sector, 17,847 million baht worth of crops were destroyed (10,560 million baht for rice and 7,287 million baht for field crops).  In the livestock sub-sector, over 29 million animals died, and 14,400 rai (2,300 ha) of pasture grass fields were damaged, affecting 220,000 farmers. Total losses are estimated at 6,483 million baht.  In the fishery sub-sector, 699 districts suffered damages with 142,842 people affected. As many as 156,764 ponds and 18,912 stews were damaged. The losses are estimated at 4,033 million baht.  The total economic loss in the agricultural sector is estimated at 72,000 million, which is 5% of the total national damage of 1,425 billion baht. The Project is composed of three components, namely Component 1: Support for the Reproduction of Pastures, Component 2: Rehabilitation and Reinforcement of Irrigation Facilities, and Component3: Guidelines for Disaster-Resilient Agriculture and Agricultural Community. Each component is described below. The Project commenced in March 2012 and will be terminated in July 2013.

JICA 2 / 29 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

B. COMPONENT 1: SUPPORT FOR THE REPRODUCTION OF PASTURES 1. Distribution of Fertilizers and Seeds/seedlings In the livestock sub-sector, the target provinces were increased from 26 to 49 as agreed in the kick-off meeting on March 28, 2012. On March 27, 1000 tons of compound fertilizer (15-15-15) and 200 tons of urea (46-0-0) were handed over from JICA to the Thai counterparts at the Animal Nutrition Research and Development Center in Chainat Province, and then were distributed to 29 centers/stations for distribution to 3,826 beneficiary farmers (original plan of DLD HQ). Seeds and seedlings, mainly of Pangola grass and Pakchong-1, were also distributed according to the original plan, 20 ton of seeds and 120 ton of seedlings, through DLD. The distribution of fertilizers and seeds/seedlings was completed in early July 2012.

The monitoring survey of 29 centers/stations and beneficiary livestock farmers was started in late June 2012 to learn how the fertilizers were distributed and how the beneficiaries used them to revive damaged pastures. A total of 515 farmers in 49 provinces were sampled, but data from only 488 were usable for the analysis.

The following summarizes the results of the monitoring survey:

 1,200 tons of fertilizers were distributed by DLD HQ and local centers/stations in 29 provinces.  The number of beneficiaries was increased from the original 3,826 to 3,911.  The beneficiary area was also increased from the original 20,000 rai to 20,696 rai, and works out to one bag (50 kg)/rai of compound fertilizer (15-15-15) and 10 kg/rai of urea.  Since pastures of centers/station themselves also suffered damage from the 2011 flood, they received fertilizers, equivalent of 30% of the total amount.  Forage seeds of 25.709 tons comprising six species were distributed, which was an increase from the original 20 tons.  Seedlings of Pangola grass and Pakchong-1 procured through DLD’s seed centers were also distributed. Compared with the original plan of 120 tons, actual distribution was increased to 253.7 tons.  All 488 beneficiaries surveyed had received fertilizers, and 64% had used the fertilizers to revive pastures as of end July 2012. Pasture grass grew about 20 cm in height in 2 weeks after planting. From this it can be concluded that the high quality fertilizers contributed to the reproduction of pastures.

2. Training of Farmers To build capacity of livestock farmers on pasture recovery, three-day training workshops were held at eight sites in different regions. Approximately 40 farmers were invited to each event, including those who cultivate forage only for sale as well as those who cultivate for feeding. The training modules included pasture establishment and its management, feeding, forage selection, hay and silage making, animal health and management, pasture harvesting methods, irrigation, and livestock selection. Practical sessions for silage making and pasture establishment were also conducted. One DLD official

3 / 29 Summary The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report who participated in FAO’s training on DRMS (Disaster Risk Management System) held in March 2012 lectured about disaster management.

Information collected from workshop participants in each site is summarized as shown below:

 Out of all participants, 91.4% were planting pasture,  60.8% were raising beef cattle, 15.5% were raising milk cows,  On average, 61.5% of the participants’ pasture lands were damaged,  The maximum flooding period was 120 days and the maximum water depth was 4.0m, and  52% of the participants cultivate Pangola grass.

During the training sessions, group discussions were conducted to understand problems related to pasture management and animal raising during the 2011 flood. Participants also discussed countermeasures against flood based on their lessons learned from the previous year. The major problem on animal raising was the lack of feed, and the countermeasure for it was to keep feed, such as hay and silage, in storage. Another problem was that they did not have shelter for livestock on ground higher than flood water levels. The countermeasure for this was to look for higher ground. The major problem for pastures was that pasture areas were seriously damaged. The countermeasures were to stock forage seeds and fertilizers, and to have available pumps to drain water from flooded pasture land. Farmers can also use forage varieties with a higher plant height than the flood level.

3. Activities of the Component 1 The output of the Component-1 is that recovery of productivity of damaged pasture lands is promoted. In order to attain the output, the following activities are conducted.

 Monitoring on the distribution and use of seeds/seedlings and fertilizers,  Capacity building on pasture reproduction, and others concerned, and  Policy recommendation for recovery from disaster.

4. Recommendable Countermeasures against Flood

(1) Strengthening Forage Production and Storing The monitoring survey conducted in this Project found that the most serious issue for the livestock sub-sector during and after the 2011 flood was the shortage in animal feed. This is important because all livestock need to be fed every day to maintain their health, so that they can produce good quality animal products such as meat and milk.

To produce forage for flood disasters, cultivation of Pangola grass and Pakchong-1 (Giant Napier grass), with high nutritious value, should be promoted to increase livestock productivity and feed storage. DLD recommends Pangola grass for lowland areas and Pakchong-1 for upland areas.

In the 2011 flood disaster, ANRDCs (also called DLD centers) supported livestock farmers by distributing stored hay bales from their storage in 29 provinces in the country. Considering the number of livestock, the magnitude of flooded areas and the duration of the flood, a huge amount of forage needs to be stored not only by ANRDCs but also by communities and individual livestock farmers targeting mainly cattle and goats/sheep. Feed storing at a community level is considered to be

JICA 4 / 29 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report weak because livestock farmers had not experienced serious flooding before 2011. DLD's Feed Supply Center/station A national perspective is needed to review the feed supply system for emergency situations so that Hay & Silage Production & Storing flooded areas are supported by supplies of stored feed Community/Province/Region from non-flooded areas (see figure to the right). Livestock Farmers DLD's Center/ Feed Supply (2) Identification of Flooding and Non-Flooding station Feed Supply DLD's Areas based on a Simulation Study Feed Supply Center/ station In order to implement a national-level feed supplying DLD's Center/station system for flood disasters, the first step is to identify Flooded Areas areas expected to flood based on a simulation analysis using maps. By doing so, all the 77 provinces DLD's Feed Supply (changwat), districts (amphoe) and sub-districts Center/station (tambon) of the country can be divided into two Non-Flooded Areas categories, flooding area and non-flooding area.

For flooding areas, it will be necessary to identify: 1) the location of livestock farmers by animal type, 2) livestock farmers who will not be affected by flood, and 3) the higher areas in the community not affected by flood.

Number of Estimation of Construction ruminants that hay of a few to requirement several will stay in the Total number of community to be stored storages in a ruminant animals community in a community Number of ruminants that will evacuate to a safe area away from

In order to estimate the feed requirement during floods, it is necessary to estimate the number of livestock, mainly cattle, buffaloes, goats and sheep, to be fed during and after flooding at community level. For estimation of the feed requirement, refer to Technical Paper No.16 “Feed Production and Storage for Livestock.”

(3) Estimation of Hay Storage The floor area of a storage facility for 100 LU (livestock unit) can be calculated as shown below:

Conditions Assumption Body weight of a cattle (1 LU) 500kg Intake of hay per day 13.5 kg/day/LU Flood period 60 days (to be varied depending on areas Number of cattle (LU) 100 LU(100 cattle) Requirement of hay 81.0 ton Cubic volume of hay per ton 3.9 m3/ton Estimated cubic volume of hay 315.9 m3 Height of hay bale’s heap 4.0m Required floor area 79.1 m2 (8.9x8.9 for example)

5 / 29 Summary The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Based on the finding of the site survey in flood area, it is advisable to construct not just one but a few to several storage sites scattered around the community in elevated locations. The storage should be located where it will be convenient to transport the stored hay bales when disaster hits the community.

(4) Hay Storage Monitoring by the DLD HQ DLD HQ is required to monitor the status of feed stored in 29 ANRDCs in the country every month. There are 116 feed storage sites of varying sizes. The total storage capacity is about 100,000 m3 which is able to cover the consumption of 190,000 cows feed per day. Out of 29 ANRDCs, 28 have 1 to 7 storage facilities of 10 m x 20 m. The Suphanburi ANRDC has 2 storage facilities of 10 m x 28 m each. To cope with future floods, ANRDCs have a very important role to play as seen during the 2011 flood, because they produce and store large quantities of forage (refer to ANRDC’s storage facility in Lampang). As well as monitoring hay storage, DLD HQ is also expected to develop a national plan for transporting hay to disaster areas.

The existing storing capacity of hay storages in the 29 ANRDCs in the country is as follows:

Hay Storage Items 10 x 20m size 10 x 28m size Total Hay storage (places)* 92 24 116 Estimated capacity of storing (m3) ** 73,600 26,880 100,480 Source: *:DLD HQ Note:**: calculated by JICA Team assuming at 4.0m for height of hay

(5) Further Capacity Building of Livestock Farmers Keeping livestock healthy and productive, even during disasters such as floods and droughts, is crucial because livestock farmers rely on these animals for their income. Ideally, everyone in the community should agree to make the necessary preparations to withstand a large flood, even if there are uncertainties about when or whether it will happen. However, not all farmers are aware of the importance of storing feed for animal health, and that it is important to meet nutrient requirement not only in normal times but also during and after floods. The JICA Team trained livestock farmers in eight sites in two model areas. Similar training events covering various matters on livestock management will be necessary throughout the country. This will build the capacity of livestock farmers, especially small-scale farmers with limited capital and knowledge, to improve production and, as a result, gain a more stable livelihood. The DLD HQ has the experience needed for this and should take the initiative for such training.

(6) Agricultural Machinery Requirements at ANRDCs As mentioned above the role of ANRDCs in a time of disaster is very important to support affected livestock farmers who are short of animal feed. However, according to the DLD HQ, machinery for forage production and hay making in the 29 ANRDCs has deteriorated and need to be replaced. It is also necessary to increase the total number of units to increase the capacity for forage production in the country.

JICA 6 / 29 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

C. COMPONENT 2: REHABILITATION AND REINFORCEMENT OF IRRIGATION FACILITIES 1. Background In the original plan, Component 2 mainly focused on: 1) flood recovery and prevention works implemented by RID, 2) flood recovery of Japan-assisted facilities in past projects, and 3) technical advice and assistance on rehabilitation and improvement works for irrigation facilities through the implementation of the pilot project. However, as the implementation of pilot project was canceled after selection, the third task was not fully attained.

RID is the main agency involved in planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of water resources management projects in Thailand. The total irrigated area in 2010 was 29.3 million rai (4.7 million ha) of which 24.2 million rai (3.9 million ha) consisted of 86 large-scale and 731 medium-scale irrigation systems under the operation and maintenance of RID.

2. Flood Damage, Recovery and Prevention Works on Irrigation and Drainage Facilities operated by RID 2.1 Flood Damage to Irrigation and Drainage Facilities The 2011 flood damage was very severe for irrigation and drainage facilities related to social, commercial and industrial infrastructure in rural and urban areas. Major facilities damaged were: river and canal banks and slopes that eroded and collapsed due to overtopping of flood water; village roads and bridges that collapsed or were washed away due to erosion; canals, reservoirs and ponds heavily silted by flood water; and drainage regulating gates at rivers and canals damaged and collapsed due to water pressure and overtopping. To repair these types of damage, an emergency recovery budget was used, instead of the regular annual budget.

There was also extensive flood damage on irrigation and drainage facilities related to agricultural production such as canal embankments, distribution structures and regulating gates in main and lateral canals, road crossing culverts and siphons, canal bridges, tail end outlets and on-farm facilities. For repair and rehabilitation of these structures, RID O&M Projects and Regional Irrigation Offices have carried out investigations, planning and design. These projects will be implemented as routine O&M activities within RID’s O&M budget under the 6-year Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF).

2.2 Emergency Flood Recovery and Prevention Works on Irrigation and Drainage Facilities As described above, flood damage was severe to facilities that have social, commercial and industrial functions. Therefore, recovery efforts also focus on these functions, and not necessarily on agricultural needs such as recovery of crop production.

Regarding the number of projects by type, the most common are repair, reconstruction or heightening of river banks and canal dikes, which make up 47% of the 1,283 projects in the study area, followed by repair of drainage regulators (25%), repair or reconstruction of roads and bridges (11%), dredging of rivers and canals (7%) and distribution of pumps and generators (5%). From this, it can be seen that social-related projects account for 95% of the total projects.

7 / 29 Summary The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Current projects being implemented by RID for flood recovery and prevention are categorized into seven groups below depending on planning initiatives and budget approval processes. The total number of projects approved was 2,236, for a total of about 12 billion baht nationwide as of August 2012. The project team conducted field observations and reviewed the construction work and drawings at the sites. The team noted that implementation was in line with the drawings and was in good progress with the commendable efforts of RID.

1) Batch-1 (555 sites in the country) projects were the first ones approved covering the entire country. About 40% of the projects are located in the middle and lower Chao Phraya River basin. Projects are mostly small repair and rehabilitation works. Work progress was 96.5% as of September 2012.

2) Batch-2 (955 projects in the country) projects are the second ones approved and are located mostly in the middle and lower Chao Phraya River basin where the floods damage was most serious. Projects are mostly small repair and rehabilitation works. Work progress was 97.8% as of September 2012.

3) Batch-3 (481 projects in the country) projects are also mostly small repair and rehabilitation works, and are located in the lower Chao Phraya River basin where flood damage was the worst in the 2011 flood. Work progress was 94.6% as of September 2012.

4) Emergency - SCWRM (129 projects in the country) projects are big rehabilitation works programmed by the Strategic Committee for Water Resources Management (SCWRM). Construction of the concrete wall along the Chinat-Pasak canal is included in this group. These projects are located in the lower Chao Phraya River basin. Work progress was 69.4% as of September 2012.

5) Additional Sites No. 1 (116 projects in the country) projects were programmed late, and were only approved in May 2012, with particular focus on urban areas in the lower Chao Phraya River basin to protect them from flood disasters in 2012. Work progress was 14.9% as of September 2012.

6) Additional Sites No. 2 (11 projects in the country) projects are under approval process. The projects include two dam projects with implementation up to the year 2019 with a relatively large budget.

7) Additional Sites No. 3 (3 projects in the country) projects were proposed in late May 2012 to supplement the Emergency–SCWRM group mentioned above. The project scale is quite small.

2.3 MTEF Plan and Emergency Recovery and Prevention Works RID formulates the MTEF plan annually as a 6-year expenditure proposal for all existing and new RID projects. The MTEF is divided into four categories. The total number of projects under MTEF 2012 – 2017 for the six RID regions in the middle and lower Chao Phraya River basin in the study area is 3,521. Most of these are in the C-1 (1,180 projects for existing O&M projects) and C-2 (1,400 projects for new irrigation projects) categories, which are allocated 36% each of the budget. In the case of the 2011 flood, however, the special emergency recovery budget, outside MTEF, was appropriated.

3. Review of Flood Damage and Recovery of Projects Assisted by Japan in the Past A number of aid projects assisted by Japan have been implemented during the past several decades. Among these, projects located in the area affected by the Chao Phraya River flood were selected and

JICA 8 / 29 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report the flood damages were studied to identify suitable rehabilitation pilot projects for this Project.

(1) Chao Phraya Irrigation Project by the Agricultural Land Reform Office (ALRO): The project is located in Ayutthaya Province. The total project area of 12,620 ha is divided into 10 Farm Blocks. At the completion of the project in 1988 through an OECF loan, the irrigated area had been protected by polder dikes with crest elevation of 3.5 m above msl. In the 2011 flood, water overtopped the polder dikes. As temporary dikes were built in Farm Blocks 1–4, paddy rice was harvested successfully, while in Farm Blocks 5–10, paddy rice was completely destroyed by long- term inundation. However the damage to the irrigation facilities was not serious.

(2) Pasak Irrigation Project (Kaeng Khoi-Ban Mo Pumping Irrigation Project) by RID: The project is located in Sara Buri Province, between the Pasak River and the Chainat-Pasak Canal. With an OECF loan, the construction work was carried out from 2001 to 2005. The pumping station is on the Pasak River, but since the water level in 2011 did not reach the floor level of the pumping house, there was no damage to the pumping station. As the project area is located in a rather elevated area, no damages were caused to the irrigation and drainage canals either.

(3) Small Scale Irrigation Program (SSIP) and Small Scale Irrigation Improvement and Rehabilitation Project (SSIRP) by RID: Both the SSIP and the SSIRP were implemented nationwide with an OECF loan. The SSIP was implemented from 1977 to 1985 and the SSIRP from 1998 to 2003. The project team conducted an inventory survey of 106 facilities under the SSIRP in the study area. Most of the facilities had been transferred to TAOs. According to the survey, for 2 out of 4 seriously damaged facilities, repair plans had not been prepared. Seven slightly damaged facilities have been dredged and repaired by the Water Users Groups (WUGs).

(4) Large Swamp Inland Fishery Project (LSIFP) for Bung Boraped Sub-project by DOF: This LSIFP sub-project, located in Nakhon Sawan Province in central Thailand, is for the Bung Boraped Swamp, the largest swamp in Thailand. The construction work was completed in 1993 with an OECF loan. The major facilities constructed are weirs, gates, dikes, roads, drainage canals and a fishery station. The swamp area was totally inundated for 3 months and a huge amount of sediment, estimated at 4 million m3, was dredged by DOF together with the military. Offices and hatchery ponds were also inundated and buildings, facilities, laboratory equipment and O&M equipment were seriously damaged. However, the extent of damage to laboratory equipment, aquarium system, etc. has not yet been determined.

(5) Small Swamp Inland Fisheries Project (SSIFP) by DOF: The SSIFP was implemented nationwide with an OECF loan in 1983. The area affected by the flood of the Chao Phraya River in 2011 is the Lower Northern Region with 91 small swamps. According to the survey conducted by DOF, 7 small swamps were reportedly damaged by flood sediment.

4. The Pilot Project

(1) Objective of the Pilot Project The aim of the pilot project was to support rehabilitation works implemented by RID for flood

9 / 29 Summary The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report recovery, prevention and improvement of irrigation facilities in the Chao Phraya River basin.

(2) Selection of the Pilot Project Candidates for the pilot project were categorized into three groups, namely i) flood recovery and prevention projects being implemented by RID, ii) flood recovery and improvement projects requested by RID for JICA support, and iii) projects assisted by Japan in the past. Current conditions, issues and necessity of projects were studied and assessed for the selection. The projects implemented by RID for the emergency recovery and prevention were excluded. Project suitability as pilot implementation was also taken into consideration. As a result, the improvement of the Phlai Chumphon O&M Project in Phitsanulok Province was identified as a potential pilot project.

The Phlai Chumphon irrigation system, built 30 years ago, is located in Phitsanulok Province under RID Regional Office 3 in the middle Chao Phraya River basin with an irrigation service area of 218,000 rai (34,880 ha), one of the largest irrigation systems in the country. The project area is situated in the lowlands between the Nan River and the Yom River where floods occur frequently every year. The Nan River is frequently flooded and causes extensive damage to the urban areas of Phitsanulok. The Yom River also floods between August and October every year into the urban areas of Sukhothai.

Subsequently, additional field work was conducted, and detailed discussions were held with the Phlai Chumphon O&M project office and RID central office taking into consideration the following factors; i) appropriateness to the agriculture sector, ii) applicability to other irrigation systems, iii) viability in terms of the construction period, iv) necessity of JICA support in view of urgency, and v) priority by RID. From this, it was finally agreed that the construction of outlet drainage structures on the main canal of the Phlai Chumphon irrigation system would be the first priority for the pilot project.

(3) Design of the Pilot Project During floods, the main canal of the Phlai Chumphon irrigation system is often used as a bypass canal of the Nan River to prevent flooding in the city of Phitsanulok. Although this happens only in cases of emergency, flood water diverted into the main canal is discharged to the project area through lateral canals resulting in serious inundation and damage in lower areas along the Yom River. The purpose of outlet drainage structures is to allow the main canal to be used safely as a floodway or bypass canal when the Nan River is severely flooded. Diverted flood water is conveyed downstream by the main canal then discharged back into the Nan River at a point downstream of the Phitsanulok urban area.

The design for this project, “the construction of outlet drainage structures on the main canal”, was made by RID, and under the JICA project, one outlet drainage structure was reviewed and confirmed. Main points reviewed were; i) hydraulic design, related to design discharge, and existing and design flow capacity, ii) structural design, related to structural calculation and a comparative study for transitions, gate operation deck, box culvert, etc, iii) foundation treatment, and iv) temporary closure facility. The RID design was found to be in line with RID’s design standards. Moreover, construction, work quantity and construction costs were also reviewed and an implementation plan was prepared.

JICA 10 / 29 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

(1) Conclusions

1) Flood Recovery and Prevention Projects by RID The total number of projects being implemented by RID nationwide for flood emergency recovery and prevention are 2,236. They are funded by a special emergency budget, in addition to RID’s regular annual budget. These projects focus on the social, commercial and industrial functions of irrigation and drainage facilities in rural and urban areas. The 1,283 projects in the study area under the special emergency budget can be categorized into; 1) repair, reconstruction or heightening of river and canal dikes (47%), 2) repair of drainage regulators (25%), 3) repair or reconstruction of roads and bridges (11%), 4) dredging of rivers and canals (7%) and 5) distribution of pumps and generators (5%).

On the other hand, flood recovery of irrigation facilities related to agricultural production are part of the regular O&M works by O&M Project Offices (86 offices nationwide and 49 offices in the study area for large-scale irrigation systems) and RID Regional Irrigation Offices (731 systems nationwide and 151 systems in the study area for medium-scale irrigation). They are formulated as part of the 6- year MTEF plan (2012-2017) in which 1,180 O&M projects are listed in the study area.

The type of engineering involved in the emergency recovery projects are earth work, concrete work, stone work, pile driving, slope protection, cofferdam work, dredging, pump and generator supply, etc. For the design of those works, RID can generally handle the work required, such as damage investigation, topographic and geological survey, detailed design, and construction supervision. As for routine O&M work of existing facilities, there will not be any technical engineering difficulties for RID since it has extensive experience in this area of work.

2) Past Japan-Assisted Projects Projects in the study area supported by Japan in the past are the Chao Phraya Irrigation Project, the Pasak Irrigation Project, the Small Scale Irrigation Project (SSIP), the Small Scale Irrigation Improvement and Rehabilitation Project (SSIRP), the Large Swamp Inland Fishery Project (LSIFP), and the Small Swamp Inland Fisheries Project (SSIFP). Most of the recovery works on those projects are already underway through efforts of the respective agencies.

3) Cancellation of Pilot Project Implementation: The Pilot Project for the support of flood recovery and prevention was identified as a result of field surveys and discussions with RID. The plan was to construct outlet drainage structures (flood waterways) at Phlai Chumphon O&M Project in Phitsanulok Province. However, JICA decided to cancel the Pilot Project, out of concern for potential duplication or other unintended consequences related to the international bidding for the infrastructure for water resources management and flood prevention initiated by the Thai government. Nevertheless, the project team reviewed the detailed designs for these structures that had been prepared by RID and concluded that the designs for the proposed facilities are technically appropriate.

11 / 29 Summary The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

(2) Recommendations

1) Flood countermeasure by use of irrigation canals as flood waterway It is recommended that the use of irrigation canals as floodways be promoted. This can help prevent flood disasters in many places including residential and living areas, commercial and industrial areas, areas with public facilities, historical ruins, rural villages and farmland in local cities and towns situated along flood-prone rivers in Chao Phraya River basin. In other words, irrigation facilities of both existing and new systems can be utilized not only for agricultural production but also as components of flood disaster prevention systems. To construct such systems, factors such as cost effectiveness, hydraulic design during flood water discharge, floodway structural design and foundation treatment, should be taken into consideration, in addition to the usual requirements in planning and design of irrigation facilities.

2) Flood countermeasure by promotion of inundation prevention system It is recommended that inundation prevention systems be widely promoted wherever applicable to reduce crop damage, mainly of paddy, due to long periods of inundation in irrigated farmlands in the Chao Phraya River basin. For this, particular considerations, such as inundation analysis at flood, drainage plan, evaluation of project viability and drainage method selection, shall be taken into account in planning and design.

JICA 12 / 29 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

D. COMPONENT 3: GUIDELINES FOR DISASTER-RESILIENT AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY

1. Overview of Component 3 1.1 Component 3 Outputs The output of Component 3 is guidelines on disaster-resilient agriculture and agricultural community planning.. These guidelines were designed for use in the entire Chao Phraya River basin so that rural agricultural communities in these areas will be ready and capable to cope with any future large floods.

1.2 Selection of Model Areas of Component 3 Model Tambon areas were selected from four provinces, Phitsanulok, Chainat, Pra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya (hereinafter Ayutthaya), and Pathum Thani to represent areas in the Upper Chao Phraya River Basin, the upper Chao Phraya Delta, the middle Delta, and the lower Delta, respectively.

Eight model areas were selected in each province based on the following criteria: 1) a variety of farming systems is represented, 2) the community is closely knit, is cooperative towards government agencies, and is recommended by provincial government offices, 3) the area suffered flood damage in 2011, and 4) may be affected by the government flood mitigation plans such as for water retention, including monkey cheek reservoirs, or floodways. As for the orchid cultivation sub-sector, Nakhon Pathom was selected as the model area.

1.3 Preparation Process for the Guidelines and Pilot Activities/Projects In preparing the Guidelines, a participatory planning process was used in which communities were the main actors. A “learning process approach” was taken to formulate the Guidelines based on lessons learned from pilot projects and activities by provincial task force members and villagers. Among the activities implemented in 21 programs covering 5 sectors, detailed information about model projects, the pilot initiatives with successful results and considered useful to disseminate, are provided in the Guidelines, as well as information and communication materials such as leaflets, booklets and DVDs in the Thai language.

1.4 Stakeholders in Component 3 For Component 3, the main counterpart agency is the Office of Agricultural Economics (OAE), and nine Departments and Offices under MOAC were involved in the Project at central level as members of the Joint Coordinating Committee. At provincial level, a Provincial Task Force chaired by the Provincial Governor was organized in each model area province. The provincial offices of Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM) and Community Development Department (CDD) under the Ministry of Interior were assigned as members in addition to those under MOAC. At field activity level, the JICA project team worked with seven faculties of five universities and one institute. An NGO was also hired by the Project team to monitor the pilot project field activities.

13 / 29 Summary The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

2. The General Guideline

2.1 Objective: Why is a Flood Disaster-Resilient Plan Necessary? In most rural areas within the Greater Chao Phraya basin, people have learned to live with regular flooding, particularly in areas where floods are frequent. On the other hand, many areas suffered huge economic losses in recent years. These were areas which had not experienced severe flooding after irrigation and drainage facilities were constructed. The increase in the scale of damages and losses can also be attributed to recent changes in lifestyle. After the experience of the 2011 flood which brought about enormous damages and economic losses to the country, the Government of Thailand has conceived an ambitious Master Plan on water resource management and is planning to implement a large-scale flood countermeasure project. When these countermeasures are implemented, urban areas are expected to be protected from flood waters. However, the countermeasures do not provide any guarantees for the rural agricultural areas to be protected from flooding problems. Instead, there are plans to retain flood water in rural areas to protect urban areas and to release it after floods recede.

Under these circumstances, people in rural areas need to make all possible efforts to prepare for possible floods and to make their communities sufficiently resilient. To this end it is necessary to minimize the damage to agriculture and empower the rural communities to recover from disasters. This can be done by adapting their farming practices with support systems aimed at introducing new technologies and extension services. It is for this purpose that these “Guidelines for Disaster-Resilient Agriculture and Agricultural Community” were prepared.

2.2 Target Users of the Guidelines These Guidelines are expected to be used primarily by concerned national government agencies, provincial level administrative authorities, as well as the Tambon level local governments in order to formulate the Tambon Plans for Disaster-Resilient Agriculture and Agricultural Community.

2.3 Basic Concepts of the Guidelines

(1) Resiliency: What makes agriculture and agricultural community resilient? “Resilience,” a term commonly used in the field of disaster prevention and mitigation in recent years, means the ability to recover, or bounce back quickly, and implies the ability to adapt to maintain a minimum level of functionality for living in situations where the disaster cannot be avoided.. In formulating the National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) of Thailand, this concept of “resilience” is captured in the term “self-immune system,” and is one of three main pillars of the “sufficiency economy” philosophy initiated by His Majesty, the present King of Thailand.

By building disaster-resilient agriculture and agricultural communities, it is possible to minimize the flood impact and strengthen the community’s ability to cope with the disaster by enabling them to maintain their livelihoods and to manage flood-related risks.

When people prepare for possible future disasters using plans they made by themselves based on their own previous experience, the community’s ability to adapt will be strengthened. Furthermore, it is important to learn from local wisdom and lessons learned regarding actions taken to solve problems in the past. An effective way for people to learn is to hear from other people with similar experience and

JICA 14 / 29 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report perspectives, and find out how they solved problems.

(2) Preparation of Activities by Stage of Disaster Cycle In the Guidelines, the model activities/projects are Pre‐ Disaster Phase During‐ Disaster Phase Post‐ Disaster Phase presented separately for each issue, and are linked to Prevention Preparedness Response Recovery each of the 2P2R stages as follows. 1. Community Based Disaster Risk Management [CBDRM]

 Pre-disaster phase: “Prevention” and 2. Community Water Resources Management “Preparedness” to minimize damage and loss [CWRM] 3. Flood Damage Reduction Measures in Agriculture and Livestock Sector  During disaster phase: “Response” to flood [AGRI]

disaster and maintaining livelihoods during the 4. Income Generation Activities towards Recovery flooding period, which may last for a long time of Rural Livelihood [iGEN]  Post disaster phase: “Recovery” from the disaster 5. Networking, Supporting and Institution for Community Strengthening [NET] and return to normal conditions

(3) Selection of Co-Benefit Activities as Model Activities/Projects It is difficult for people to change their activities and life style to cope with a large-scale flood disaster which might occur once in 100 years. And it is doubtful that the planning for such eventualities may be useful in reality. As such, the model activities and projects should be useful not only in the case of a large disaster, but also when there are no disasters or when there is regular flooding. In other words, the “co-benefit” concept was applied as a criterion when selecting activities/project components to include in these Guidelines.

(4) Development of Tambon Disaster Resilient Plan and Support from Provincial Administration In rural areas, community means village or society, often built around the school as the core institution, and woven together by human networks of relatives, friends, and various groups sharing common values, such as religion and other customs. In the field of community disaster management, the first priority is to strengthen the self-help capacity of individuals and households, as well as that of the larger community. On top of this, support will be provided by local administrative authorities. The Tambon Administration Organization is the key local agency and is expected to play an important role as the interface between the people and the higher administrative authorities, such as provincial and national government offices.

2.4 Participatory Planning Process To improve community resilience through self-help and mutual support, it is necessary to formulate plans with people’s participation, not by giving a ready-made, top-down plan. As there are standardized procedures and tools for participatory planning processes, the following is a brief description. 1) Assessment of flood damages and PRA 2) SWOT analysis and plan formulation (Strategic planning method) 3) Action plans, budget and support from agencies concerned

It is highly recommended that study tours and training programs to learn from good lessons, as well as model activities and projects described in the Guidelines, are included in the Tambon plans.

15 / 29 Summary The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

3. Thematic Guidelines

3.1 Community Based Flood Disaster Risk Management Plan

(1) Community Characteristics, Flood Disaster Risks and Countermeasures The most common disaster affecting Thailand is flooding. Floods affect Thai communities annually mainly in the rainy season between June and September. The Chao Phraya River is prone to swelling and overflowing during the rainy season, bringing along with it great destruction as experienced in 2011. Floods in Thailand are, in principle, seasonal. Therefore, people can prepare for possible floods before the flood season, and thus mitigate the impact on their lives and livelihoods. At the same time, inundation periods have tended to become prolonged in recent years. Communities can broadly be classified as in Table 4.3.4 below, which summarizes the issues related to community disaster risk management by community characteristics.

Characteristics of the General situation Issues for community disaster risk community management Food risk High  People are familiar with  Planning/implementation of community (flood-prone living with water flood disaster risk management, including area)  People’s awareness on flood water measurement, early warning, and disaster risk management is evacuation high  Development and utilization of a flood hazard map  Utilization of local knowledge and experience  Coordination with external organizations for possible support and cooperation Low (non-  People are not familiar with  Planning/implementation of overall community flood- floods disaster risk management, including floods prone area)  People’s awareness on flood  Awareness raising activities on disaster disaster risk management is low management, including floods, such as disaster education in schools Type of Flash Flood  Caused by heavy rain  Establishment of early warning and flood risk mainly in sloping highlands evacuation systems based on rainfall and  Rapid flow of water to the weather forecasts lowlands  Planning/implementation of community flood disaster risk management, focusing on the characteristics of flash floods Inundation  Gradual overflow of water  Establishment of information/data  Predicable to some extent collection/analysis on water level and warning system  Planning/implementation of community flood disaster risk management, including supply and assistance during inundation Type of Rural  People have relatively common  Planning/implementation of overall community community interests and value disaster risk management  Collective activities are  Utilization of community groups and networks relatively easy to organize Urban/  Interests of the people are  Planning/implementation of overall community Sub-urban different disaster risk management with stronger  Difficulty to organize collective initiative of TAO and other authorities activities due to inbound and  Coordination with business entities in and outbound migrant residents around the community for possible support and cooperation

(2) Participatory Planning for Community Flood Disaster Risk Management Participatory planning and implementation for flood disaster risk management is considered as an effective tool to prevent and mitigate disaster impacts, particularly for communities in flood-prone areas. Steps to develop a community flood disaster risk management plan and important

JICA 16 / 29 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report countermeasures are shown as below.

STEP 1) Collection and Analysis of Community Information STEP 2) Risk Analysis and Development of a Community Flood Hazard and Evacuation Map STEP 3) Establishment of a Flood Disaster Risk Management Committee and Working Groups STEP 4) Development of a Flood Disaster Risk Management Plan

Based on past experience and characteristics of the community, necessary tasks and actions are identified to prevent and mitigate flood disaster impacts on the community for the each stage of 1) preparation, 2) pre-inundation, 3) during inundation, and 4) post-inundation phases. Establishment of effective warning systems, evacuation to safe places, supply and support during inundation are key components of flood disaster risk management.

(3) Collection of Water-Related Information and Establishment of Warning Systems It is important to collect and analyze water-related information in a timely manner to assess flood disaster risks, particularly in flood–prone communities. Water information can be collected from the RID offices, neighboring communities, and by taking water level measurements in the community. Therefore, networking and communication with concerned external organizations, as well as establishment of water level monitoring and recording systems in the community are important tasks. In addition to the collection and analysis of the information, it is necessary to establish effective communication systems to deliver clear and prompt warnings.

(4) Flood Hazard and Evacuation Map and Evacuation Drill Evacuation to safe places is crucial for people to protect themselves when faced with disasters. Evacuation should be done appropriately, swiftly, and in an orderly manner. Therefore, it is necessary for the community to identify possible evacuation centers and evacuation routes in advance not only for people but also for livestock and other assets, such as vehicles and machinery. Evacuation maps should be displayed in public places and be distributed to all households along with notices about preparation needed for an evacuation. Maintaining security at evacuation sites is also an important issue to be considered as a part of disaster management planning. Conducting disaster evacuation drills will; 1) raise people’s awareness on disaster risk management, 2) strengthen networks among concerned organizations in the community, such as schools and health centers, and 3) provide an opportunity for the management committee and working groups to practice their duties.

(5) Provision of Supplies and Services Provision of necessary materials and services for evacuees and people left in their houses should be considered both in terms of emergency support as well as relatively long-term support. Securing drinking water supply is one of the most urgent and important tasks for the management committee. Because the supply channels of drinking water may be disrupted during the disaster, it is good for the community to have its own sources of drinking water located in the community or in nearby areas. In order to provide safe drinking water during floods, a reliable water supply system is needed. A drinking water vending system, which can provide emergency stocks of drinking water and secure operation and maintenance costs, is recommended as a countermeasure against floods.

17 / 29 Summary The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

(6) Transferring Lessons to the Next Generation While the memory of the devastating flood in 2011 is still fresh in people’s minds, the experience and lessons of the disaster should be transferred to the younger generation. Activities such as disaster education can be implemented in collaboration with schools and community people, including parents of students. Schools in the community can function as disaster learning centers for the next generation.

3.2 Community Water Resources Development and Management

(1) Importance of community level water resources development and management for floods and droughts When a flood or a drought occurs, it is very difficult for community people to solve these problems. One possible ways to mitigate these frequently occurring disasters is to expand monkey cheek areas. Monkey cheeks can store flood water in the rainy season so that the water can be used for various purposes in the dry season, such as for irrigation or drinking water. Not only natural bodies of water, such as swamps and rivers but also existing canals, ponds and irrigation facilities can be expanded and rehabilitated as monkey cheeks. There are more than 520 Tambons in the upstream Study Area. If each Tambon stores 2 MCM of flood water, about 1,000 MCM of water could be stored, the equivalent of a large-scale dam. Similar to large dams, monkey cheeks can protect downstream areas from flood damage in the rainy season and store water for irrigation in the dry season.

(2) Comparison between large-scale irrigation areas and small-scale irrigation or rain-fed agricultural areas When comparing areas with large-scale irrigation schemes and areas with small-scale irrigation schemes and rain-fed agriculture, it is possible to see that impact of the flood depends on geographical features of the areas, as well as on the development levels of irrigation and drainage facilities. As noted above, areas with small-scale irrigation schemes and rain-fed agriculture are predominantly in the upper Chao Phraya River Basin. The causes of the flood in these areas are overflow of banks in the major rivers and surface runoff from mountainous or hilly areas. Flood damage during the rainy season and water shortage during the dry season are the main issues in these areas. On the other hand, floods in the downstream delta areas are caused by overflow of banks in the major rivers. However, since drainage canals and gates are well developed, flooding can be controlled by using these drainage facilities. (1) Upstream Flood Prone Area (2) Upstream Flood Prone Area (3) Upstream Hilly Area (4) Delta Area River P River Flood Flood Pond

Tributary ulator g

Gate Re Pump Pump P P P Pond Pond Basic Concept P P P P

Sugarcane Pond Paddy Drainage Gate RID project type Small Scale (SSIP,SSIFP) Small Scale (SSIP,SSIFP) Large Scale Rainfall from Rainfall from mountainous Cause of Flood Main River Main River /hilly area area & Flash Flood Issues Flood & Drought Flash Flood & Drought Flood Irrigation & - ✓ drainage network Intake facilities Small scale Mobile pump, Weir, Gate Regulator, permanent pump station Irrigation & Drainage - ✓ canal Drainage gate - ✓ Type A Type B Type C ✓ Development Type Structural Measures Non Structural Measures

JICA 18 / 29 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

(3) Community Monkey Cheek Development Based on the characteristics of the topography, flow channel of tributaries, flood outbreak situation and existing irrigation and Type-A drainage development levels in the Study Area, community monkey Type-B cheek development is classified into three types.

[Type-A] Community Monkey Cheek Development in lowland areas affected by flooding caused by overflow of major rivers

[Type-B] Community Monkey Cheek Development in lowland areas affected by flooding caused by runoff from hilly areas

[Type-C] Community Monkey Cheek Development in lowland and Type-C hilly rain-fed agricultural areas affected by flooding from mountainous areas

Work components are the same for Types A, B, and C and consists of heightening of the dike crest, expansion of the canal section by dredging, dredging of existing ponds, and rehabilitation and construction of regulators and weirs. With these improvements, it will be possible to store flood water in the canal and to reduce flood damage along the canal, as well as to store water for irrigation in the dry season. This micro watershed water resources development and management plan is a very important concept and useful for those Tambons in the upper Chao Phraya River basin as a model of monkey cheek development not only to reduce the flood and drought damage in their own area but also to reduce the flood damage to the downstream areas. The concept is to reduce damaged caused in the micro watershed by flood and drought occurring once or twice every several years by developing and managing water resources properly through Inter-Tambon collaboration. The rehabilitation of deteriorated small water resources to increase their storage capacity is the output of this project.

(4) Participatory Flood Management in Large-Scale Irrigation Areas RID manages the irrigation and drainage facilities in large-scale irrigation project areas, but water management data distributed by RID often do not reach Tambons and farmers. In 2011, it was reported that flood information was not adequately transmitted to farmers, and as a result, the rice suffered damage before it could be harvested.

RID has classified the three zones of water volume discharge as a flood monitoring and warning system, with water level zones in three colors: green, yellow and red. By monitoring the levels, warnings can be issued when the yellow zone is reach, allowing for timely storage of drinking water and food, and for preparation of evacuation sites and measures, such as boat, well in advance of the arrival of a big flood. Warming systems for big floods in other large-scale irrigation areas should be formulated in accordance with RID’s flood water discharge monitoring system.

A community level flood water management website is proposed for the Tambon office. This website allows for comparison and analysis of the staff gauge water level data installed in the community and RID’s water level data. Being a simple web-based system, the local community, the general public and government agencies can all access the data in real time. The website can also include

19 / 29 Summary The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report information related to community water management and warnings for floods and droughts.

3.3 Flood Countermeasures in the Agriculture and Livestock Sector

(1) Types of Countermeasures in the Agriculture and Livestock Sector Proposed countermeasures in agriculture and livestock sector are categorized in four major stages of prevention, preparedness, response and recovery (2P2R). As a preventive measure, there are two major strategies, “avoidance,” and “risk reduction.” As strategies for response, “evacuation” is proposed. Then, after communities experience flood damage in the agriculture and livestock sector, “quick recovery” is the main strategy for recovery.

Stage Strategy Concepts Avoid damage by harvesting before flood comes, cultivating Avoidance flood tolerant varieties/crops and keeping animals on a raised-floor Prevention Reduce the cost of production, by which loss caused by flood Risk can be minimized; or diversify the cropping portfolio, by which Reduction risk of complete loss can be reduced. Preparedness

Stock for Local seed stock of vegetables. Construction of feed storage Emergency and promotion of feed crop production for livestock. Response

Provide feed for livestock during flood at evacuation sites, Evacuation including cooperation with other Tambons and DLD centers.

Be prepared to re-start agricultural production as soon as flood Quick Recovery finished, which may include preparation of seed stock and Recovery promotion of short-cycle vegetable cultivation.

(2) Paddy Paddy makes up approximately 70 % of the total agricultural land in the lower Chao Phraya River basin. Furthermore, paddy was estimated to account for approximately 60% of the total damage caused by the 2011 flood. Thus, strategic planning of paddy cultivation is a central issue in the agriculture sector. There are two major ways to reduce the risk of flood regarding paddy cultivation: avoiding the flooding season and reducing cost. For the avoidance strategy, three specific approaches are proposed: 1) limit the number of crops to two per year, 2) introduce transplanting and 3) use early maturing varieties of rice. For cost reduction, on the other hand, 1) appropriate use of chemical inputs, 2) the use of microorganisms, such as “por dor,” and/or 3) use of home-grown rice seeds are recommended.

JICA 20 / 29 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Flood Risk Reduction on Paddy

Avoidance of Flood Season Cost Reduction

Maximum Two Introduction of Use of New Appropriate Use of In-house Cropping per Year Transplanting Varieties Use of Micro- production Inputs organisms of seeds

Early Flood Maturing Tolerance

First of all, although its impact is limited (10 to 15 days), transplanting is an effective flood countermeasure as it shortens the cultivation period in the main field. Moreover, weed management in the early stages of cultivation is easier when transplanting. In principle, machine transplantation is the preferred approach because it can manage a bigger area of paddy and requires less labor. However, there are some areas where transplanting machines cannot be used because of soft foundations or inappropriate land preparation. Thus, in the short term, or as a transition phase, parachuting would the first priority because it is less costly to implement.

On the other hand, it was found that service providers for machine transplantation and parachuting are still limited. Thus, the development of service providers in this field should also be a priority. One of the recommendations for the government sector is to support this process, especially for training in parachuting.

(3) Vegetables As a means of coping with flood situations, vegetable cultivation can be a useful tool for individual farmers. There are four major strategies to strengthen resilience of agricultural communities: avoidance of flood, risk reduction, stock for emergency and quick recovery.

Avoidance of flood may include the use of commodities or cultivation methods suited to flooded environments. It also includes protection of farm plots by constructing dikes around the plots, particularly for high-value crops like fruits. On the other hand, for the risk reduction strategy, diversification of crops is recommended. Vegetable cultivation can provide farmers with more alternatives, making them more resilient to flood disaster. Moreover, preparation of seed stocks for emergency use is recommended. If farmer households can produce their own seeds, restarting vegetable cultivation will be easier. Lastly, quick recovery is possible with vegetable production since short-cycle crops require lower initial investment. Resilience Enrichment

Avoidance of Risk Stock for Quick Flood Reduction Emergency Recovery

Use Commodities Protection Diversification Preparation High Value Short-cycle or Cultivation of Farm of Crops of Seed Crops Crop Methods Suited Stock Cultivation Cultivation

21 / 29 Summary The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Although income from a small plot is quite limited, with vegetable cultivation farmers can earn cash in about three to four weeks. This kind of small but quick cash income can help farmers in the recovery process since the cash can be used for agricultural inputs, foods or house repairs.

Thus, the cultivation of safe vegetables using less chemical inputs and thereby reducing the production cost, can be a good means to a smooth recovery. In addition, if farmers already have access to an established market, this will help speed up the recovery process. Green markets are markets where farmers sell good-quality vegetables, produced with less chemical inputs, directly to consumers. These markets make vegetable production activities more sustainable and easier to restart after floods. Therefore, establishing green markets is recommended as a model activty to promote.

(4) Flood Countermeasures in the Livestock Sub-Sector The most serious issue in the livestock sub-sector during and after the 2011 flood was the shortage of animal feed. Therefore, the preparation of feed crop is proposed as a major countermeasure for the livestock sub-sector. As shown in the figure below, this consists of two programs; the preparation of stock for emergency before the flood, and the provision of animal feed under the evacuation strategy. Identification of evacuation sites is a program under the risk reduction strategy aimed at ensuring the safety of animals during floods. The identified evacuation sites will be included in maps indicating flood hazards and evacuation routes, which are prepared as part of the community-based flood disaster risk reduction plan. In Thailand, goats are mostly raised by Muslim communities, and for these communities, the raised-floor animal house program is proposed as an avoidance strategy.

A national perspective is needed to review the feed supply system for emergency situations. Considering the number of livestock, size of flooded areas and the duration of the flood, feed stocks from the Animal Nutrition Research and Development Center (ANRDC) will not be adequate, communities and individual livestock farmers will also need to store feed. In the past, feed stock was not usually prepared at community level because livestock farmers had not experienced serious flooding before 2011. Therefore, it is proposed to strengthen feed production and storing at the DLD centers and at the community level for the reduction of future flood risks.

Flood Countermeasures in Livestock Sub-Sector

Avoidance of Risk Stock for Evacuation Flood reduction Emergency

Introduction of Identification Promotion of Promotion of Provision of raised-floor of evacuation alternative feed crops animal feed animal house sites energy for livestock during flood for flood Feed Storage for Livestock during Flood

Feed storage at community level contributes to strengthening feed supply in a time of disaster, keeping ruminant animals healthy and productive, which in turn ensures a stable income for livestock

JICA 22 / 29 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report farmers. When there are floods, communities in non-flooded areas can support livestock farmers in flooded areas by supplying hay and silage from their storage. The recommendation is to identify a few to several storage sites at elevated locations in the community, taking into consideration the locations of farmers raising ruminant animals, and the locations of pastures and how hay and silage bales will be transported during the flood.

3.4 Income Generation Activities Towards Recovery of Rural Livelihoods

(1) Resiliency based on diversity in rural livelihoods and vulnerability to floods in intensification agriculture In rural areas, people are engaged in various livelihood activities utilizing available local resources to make their living. Especially in rain-fed agricultural areas, people dependent on rainfall and other forces of nature, tend to focus on reducing risk, rather than maximizing benefit due to the uncertainties of nature. On the other hand in paddy mono-culture areas with well-developed irrigation facilities, livelihoods of farmers are more vulnerable to flood disasters. Furthermore, diversity is decreasing in peri-urban areas, where non-farm activities are increasingly replacing agriculture as the main source of income.

It is possible to increase income during and after floods by introducing new income generation activities, or by improving on current activities. Such efforts will contribute to the recovery of livelihoods and strengthen the resilience of rural communities, but at the same time will also have the added benefit of diversifying livelihood during normal times.

(2) Sustaining livelihoods during long inundation periods Fish capturing is the most important income source during a flood. In flood-prone areas, it is said that a flood is not disaster but an opportunity to gain income by catching fish. Although the proportion of people relying on fish for their livelihood may normally be about 10 to 20 percent in a given community, during floods, the majority will gain cash income by catching fish. The fish are sold to middlemen, or at the local markets or are traded within the community. Other traditional adaptations of income generation during floods is simple food processing through sun drying, smoking, grilling and fermentation of fish products, both for household consumption and for sales of surplus.

The three issues below are important to take into account as indicated in the Guidelines;

1) It is necessary to consider the impact of construction of flood prevention structures on fish and fisher folk in flood-prone areas.

2) The production capacity of existing simple processing methods can be enhanced so as to increase sales volume and expand the market to increase benefits to the community, and

3) In the newly assigned water retention areas, which have increased flood risk, it is recommended to introduce fish capturing and processing to compensate for the lost opportunity costs from farming. Marketing and sales of the produce can be supported by the provincial government.

Groups formed for food processing can also have a social function. Especially women and aged people often prefer to gather and work together even during flood periods. Bonds between group

23 / 29 Summary The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report members are important for helping each other during long inundations, for example by asking after each others’ health and problems. Specifically in an aging society, it is important to nurture such ties or social capital in the community, which will result in enhanced resilience.

Processing activities based on local resources available during floods are recommended, not only fish processing but also water hyacinth, for example. Approaches to be encouraged for processing activities during long-inundation periods are the use of local resources, simple processing, and processing that can be done at home.

(3) Role of External Support for Livelihood Recovery After floods, recovery strategies that include income generation activities involving processing are effective in that they will result in a faster recovery of livelihoods compared to a strategy that relies solely on farming which requires a longer period to generate income. However, the following are important points to keep in mind for external agencies supporting the promotion of income generation activities;

1) Considering the current strict policy on food standards, which does not allow the sale of food products outside the community without FDA approval, it is recommended to manage sanitary and hygiene conditions of the processing unit and operators at pre-GMP standard levels in order to obtain FDA certification. In case FDA-certified processing units are damaged by flooding, it is advisable to assess the feasibility of re-certification in terms of the cost required to repair and improve the processing facilities. 2) Marketing is important for selling products outside the community. This is an area where external support is relevant and critical, since villagers lack relevant knowledge and experience. While government agencies organize OTOP events and tourism promotion fairs inviting OTOP and community groups free of charge, the private sector and individuals can provide effective support by internet and word-of-mouth marketing 3) There have been some cases in which different OTOP-related government agencies were not well coordinated in their support to groups. For instance they supported the same group with different approaches, confusing and dividing the group. This kind of external support can undermine the group’s initiative and will subsequently have a negative impact on the resilience of a community. 4) The recent trend has been for supporters of OTOP and community products to focus on improved packaging as a marketing strategy, thereby increasing costs. Considering the competitive market, such cost increases would further reduce the profit margin, which is already very small. 5) Government support tends to focus on group activities. However, it is also possible for individual and private entrepreneurs in communities to produce and sell the same product by hiring other group members. If the objective is the recovery of livelihoods, supporting such individual entrepreneurs to enhance production and sales will result in enhancing the livelihoods of a wider group of people, e.g. through employment and purchase of raw materials from community members.

JICA 24 / 29 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

3.5 Networking and institutional support for communities

(1) Institutions and Organizational Arrangements at National Level Public agencies responsible for flood countermeasures include DDPM under MOI and MOAC at the national level, local governments at provincial level and a variety of departments under the MOAC. The Single Command Authority including the ONWFP under the OPM is assigned for large-scale water related disaster management. This Authority was established in May 2012 to remedy the weaknesses seen during the long-lasting 2011 flood.

(2) Roles of Provincial Line Agencies and Integration Tambon Disaster Resilient Plans are to be formulated and implemented mainly by Tambons in a participatory manner. In most cases, however, technical and budgetary support by the provincial government is required for each step of the process. The provincial government will direct the high priority Tambons to formulate their plans, but the role of line agencies is critical to the success of this process. One practical approach is to set up a task force, headed by the provincial governor to support this process. The task force will be responsible for prioritizing the Tambons in need of plan formulation, depending on flood risks and for supporting Tambon’s actions in an integrated manner.

(3) Organizations at Tambon level Tambon level organizations include the TAO, representatives from each village community who play major roles in formulating the Tambon’s Disaster Resilient Plan, and farmer groups responsible for various activities. The following table shows the actors and supporting organizations for some model projects and activities as examples organizations at Tambon level.

Supporting Org. Issues Model projects/activities Actors at provincial level Community disaster 1)Preparation of hazard map TAO DDPM, RID, prevention and 2) Secure safe water TAO, Water Management Private companies management plan 3) Flood disaster Committee management plan TAO, Flood Disaster DDPM, Management Committee, Local School Community water 4)Development of monkey- TAO RID resources management cheek projects 5) Inter-Tambon Micro TAOs RID， Watershed Development PAO/DOLA 6)Participatory flood water TAO, PDA management RID, Universities Countermeasures for 7)Transplanting of rice Individual farmers RRC mitigating/reducing 8)Safe vegetable production Marketing committee, DOAE, LDD, flood damages in + Green market Vegetable production group Health promotion agriculture and 9)Production and stockpiling Pasture/livestock group/TAO foundation, livestock sectors feed for livestock Universities, DLD Securing income for 9)Processing by using local Processing group CDD, DOAE, restoring livelihood resources Rural enterprises, OTOP group Universities

25 / 29 Summary The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

(4) Inter-Tambon Network and Cooperation with the Provincial Administration Organization Since the area covered by water resource development as well as flooding is quite extensive, what can be achieved by one Tambon is quite limited, making collaboration among neighboring Tambons necessary. Moreover, in terms of the budget for project development, the available budget of one Tambon is usually too small for any substantial project. Therefore, it is proposed that Tambons work together to formulate projects, which will also enable them to access PAO budgets for this purpose. Another JICA-supported DOLA project called Project on Enhancing the Capacity of Local Public Service Provision through Local Management Cooperation provides good lessons learned on inter- TAO collaboration.

(5) Networking with Universities, Foundations, NGOs and Private Sector Communities were able to strengthen their external networks through this Project. Through the process of receiving technical and financial support from various external organizations, including government agencies, private sector, foundations, NGOs, universities and other research institutes, partnerships were established. These partnerships may also help the communities to receive urgently needed support in any future floods, thereby strengthening their resilience to disasters.

(6) Towards collaboration among stakeholders to improve resilience in agricultural sector For recovery of high value horticulture crops, sub-sectors such as orchid and fruit which were completely destroyed by the 2011 flood, the aim of the recovery efforts was not to reconstruct the situation prior to the disaster. This required an innovative solution which was difficult to achieve by a farmer or a farming enterprise alone, but which was possible through collaboration with various stakeholders, including government agencies, universities, and private sector operators. In the pilot project, alternative media development for orchid cultivation and conjunctive use of bio-fertilizer and bio-control were experimented as example. Research and development can be a lengthy process to achieve visible development results, but when successful, the results will contribute to further progress in the relevant sectors and to economic development at the national level.

4. Conclusion and Recommendations

4.1 Conclusion The large flood in 2011 caused tremendous hardship for many people throughout the country. Based on this experience, people in the project’s model areas formulated the Disaster–Resilient Agriculture and Agricultural Community Plan at Tambon level. When implementing pilot activities for flood countermeasures, participants learned important lessons, which were captured in the form of a General Guideline, five Thematic Guidelines and 22 Technical Papers. These Guidelines and Technical Papers have been translated into the Thai language as well. Activities that were found to be effective flood countermeasures during pilot implementation have been written up as Model Programs to be promoted and expanded to other areas. These Guidelines and Model Programs are important and concrete recommendations aimed at enhancing disaster-resilience in agriculture and rural communities.

JICA 26 / 29 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

4.2 Recommendations

(1) General

1) Recommendations to the Government of Thailand  The main recommendation is to implement these Guidelines, particularly in areas which will be affected by the Government’s countermeasure project for flood mitigation, such as flood water retention areas. Where special budget allocation may be required, it is proposed that priority be given to high risk areas. For extension of the model activities, information and communication materials prepared by the Project, such as leaflets, booklets and DVDs shall be utilized.  MOAC is well-positioned not only to implement compensation program for flood damage, but also to inform departments under MOAC about the concept of strengthening resilience of agricultural communities.  Since “sufficiency economy” is a key concept in Thailand’s National Economic and Social Development Plan, it is also necessary to give more importance to the concept of “resilience in agriculture and agricultural communities”, in view of the risk of natural disasters, in addition to increased income and productivity through agricultural development.

2) Recommendations to provincial governments and TAOs  It is recommended that “Disaster Resilient Agriculture and Agricultural Community Plans” are formulated for all Tambons with high flood risk, and implemented as soon as possible.  Model projects should be reviewed to determine their suitability to the local conditions and possible expansion to other parts of the province.  In the plan formulation at Tambon level, some high priority emergency projects and parts of the learning process, such as study tours, should be implemented by TAO’s own budget in order to increase ownership of the project by the communities. As for countermeasures which require coordination in wider area than a single Tambon, requests for budget support can be submitted to PAO in collaboration with neighboring Tambons.

3) Recommendations to JICA  It is necessary to monitor whether and how these Guidelines are being used.  It is also necessary to follow-up on the implementation of the ongoing model projects.

(2) Recommendations by Sector

1) Community Based Disaster Risk Management  The methodology for participatory preparation of flood hazard maps is described in the Guidelines. For areas with high flood risk, hazard maps are required, and for this, collaboration with DDPM and RID is necessary. To ensure smooth coordination among these agencies, it is recommended to establish an implementation body at provincial level similar to the Provincial Task Force that includes the provincial DDPM, and is led by the provincial governor.  The provision of small-scale water purification systems will enable communities to produce and stock drinking water to be used during floods. It is recommended that TAOs introduce such a system as a flood countermeasure.

27 / 29 Summary The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

2) Community Water Resources Development and Management  The installation of water level gauges in Tambons will make it possible for communities to monitor water levels themselves. By comparing the local measurements with water level data from major RID stations using a web-based system, projections of water levels in the Tambon can be made, thus allowing for flood forecasting and early warning. In Tambons located within irrigation areas with high flood risk, it is recommended that this participatory system is introduced.  With a monkey cheek system, flood water can be retained during the wet season and used for irrigation during the dry season. If each Tambon in the upstream basin area retained 2 MCM of flood water, a total of as much as 1,000 MCM could be retained, the equivalent of a large dam or reservoir, which would help prevent flooding downstream. Monkey cheek development in small river basins is in line with the government policy to promote development projects by inter- Tambon collaboration, so it is recommended that PAO supports this as the main promoting body.  SSIP has been implemented nation-wide since 1977, with the total number of projects reaching more than 6,000 to date. The project consists mainly of construction of small infrastructure facilities such as weirs, regulators, farm ponds and small dams. These project facilities have been transferred to TAOs due to an administrative reform, but no longer function well due to deterioration and insufficient operation and maintenance. MOI is well-positioned to formulate plans to improve these SSIP facilities to function as monkey cheeks, as well as to support the TAOs to rehabilitate and expand the SSIP facilities with cooperation from RID.

3) Flood countermeasures in Agriculture and Livestock Sector  In order to promote transplanting as a countermeasure to flood damage, an urgent issue is to increase the number of service providers for the transplanting method of parachuting. Either RRCs stationed in each province or DOAE under MOAC is expected to develop service providers. For this, the government agencies concerned should provide necessary training not only on transplanting techniques but also on other technical issues such as seedling preparation, reduction of seeds input and seed selection methods. The production of safe vegetables is actively promoted under the MOAC policy, but roles and responsibilities of various government agencies are not clearly defined for the important activity of securing reliable markets for sale. To address this issue, the recommendation is for TAOs and farmer producers to establish green markets in cooperation with foundations and universities and also to expand sales to schools and hospitals with support from the provincial government. DOAE and LDD are jointly expected to provide necessary support for farmer producers on production-related matters.  In areas with high risk of flood and with many small scale livestock farmers, animal feed should be stocked at both household and community levels as a precaution against future floods. Furthermore, cultivation of fodder crops in these areas should be promoted. It is recommended that DLD fully brief all officers in charge at provincial and district (Amphoe) levels to provide required support for livestock groups working to set up community fodder storage facilities.  The activities proposed above are to be promoted not only when there is flooding but also in periods without floods. These recommendations are in line with government policies, and can therefore be supported through the regular government budget in areas with high flood risk. In other words, such activities can be implemented without special budget support for flood

JICA 28 / 29 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

countermeasures. Extension work for farmers is necessary, and these Guidelines can be used to ensure that the measures proposed are effective flood countermeasures.

4) Income generation for recovery of livelihood  Fish capture is an important activity in areas often affected by flood, and it is recommended that the Government conducts a survey on fish resources as well as impact on local farmers before implementing any flood countermeasure projects.  A new policy has been introduced to apply stricter standards in the food processing industry. It is, however, doubtful that the required investment needed to obtain certification will result in sufficient return for rural enterprises and OTOP groups to make it worthwhile. In addition to setting up standards for safety, government agencies concerned, such as DOAE and CDD, are requested to provide necessary guidelines for quality improvement, as well as training programs about hygiene issues for community members. Further, some financial support is also necessary for certification, although compensation for the processing facilities damaged by the 2011 flood disaster has not been provided. It is necessary for the Thai Government to introduce policies to bridge the gap between the capacity of OTOP groups and rural small enterprises and the stricter quality standards enforced.

5) Networking and institutional support for communities  It is recommended that provincial governments support TAOs so that the PAO budget may be available for TAO projects, not only for water resources development but also for flood countermeasures when they are implemented in collaboration with other Tambons.  While communities themselves make efforts to enhance their resilience against flood disasters by applying the Guidelines, the government should ensure a system for rapid flood disaster assessment and appropriate valuation for victims in water retention areas designated by the government to save urban areas from flooding.  A GIS land parcel database was established to accelerate and ensure compensation payments to farmers as a pilot project. It is recommended that the Office of Agricultural Economics (OAE) continue the work on practical application of the database for flood damage assessment. OAE shall consider to solve some issues as follows;  Remote sensing technologies to analyze satellite images on rice growing stages  Acceleration and standardization of data collection procedure for practical database construction at Tambon level  Outsourcing of work to institutes/ companies in order to expand the system nationwide

29 / 29 Summary

The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Contents of the Final Report

Location Map Abbreviations Summary Contents of the Final Report List of Appendixes List of Figures List of Tables

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTON ...... 1-1 1.1. Background and Project Outputs ...... 1-1 1.2. Implementing Agencies and Implementing System of the Project ...... 1-3 1.3. Challenges for the Flood Countermeasures in Thailand ...... 1-7 1.3.1. The Characteristics of Natural Disasters in Thailand ...... 1-7 1.3.2. Damage in the Agricultural Sector by the 2011 Flood Disaster ...... 1-8 1.3.3. Organization and Institutional Background of the Project ...... 1-11 1.3.4. Supporting activities by JICA and other donors ...... 1-12

CHAPTER 2. COMPONENT 1: SUPPORT FOR THE REPRODUCTION OF PASTURES ...... 2-1 2.1. Background ...... 2-1 2.1.1. Monitoring of the Distribution and the Use of Seedlings and Fertilizers ...... 2-1 2.1.2. Training on sustainable pasture production (and disaster risk management) ...... 2-1 2.1.3. Policy Recommendations for Recovery from Disaster ...... 2-1 2.1.4. Activities of Component 1 ...... 2-2 2.2. General Overview of the Livestock Sector in Thailand ...... 2-2 2.3. Organization of the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) ...... 2-8 2.3.1. DLD Central Administration and Mandate ...... 2-8 2.3.2. DLD Administration (Provincial and District) ...... 2-9 2.3.3. Animal Nutrition Division (Forage Seed Center) ...... 2-10 2.4. Flood Damages to Livestock in 2011 ...... 2-11 2.4.1. Estimated Amount of Damage to Livestock ...... 2-11 2.4.2. Damage on the Livestock Sector by Province ...... 2-11 2.4.3. Magnitude of the Flood Damage on Pastures ...... 2-12 2.5. Monitoring Survey on Distribution of Fertilizers and Seeds/Seedlings ...... 2-14 2.5.1. Distribution System ...... 2-14 2.5.2. Volume of Fertilizers and Seeds/Seedlings Distributed ...... 2-15 2.5.3. Number of Beneficiaries ...... 2-16 2.5.4. Beneficiary Areas ...... 2-16 2.5.5. Distribution of Seeds and Seedlings ...... 2-17

i

The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

2.6. Results of the Monitoring of Beneficial Livestock Farmers ...... 2-17 2.7. Training ...... 2-23 2.8. Recommendations ...... 2-26

CHAPTER 3. COMPONENT 2: REHABILITATION AND REINFORCEMENT OF IRRIGATION FACILITIES ...... 3-1 3.1. Background ...... 3-1 3.2. Flood Damage, Recovery and Prevention Works on Irrigation and Drainage Facilities operated by RID ...... 3-1 3.2.1. Flood Damage on Irrigation and Drainage Facilities ...... 3-1 3.2.3. MTEF Plan and Emergency Recovery and Prevention Works ...... 3-6 3.3. Confirmation of Flood Damage and Recovery of Projects Assisted by Japan in the Past .... 3-7 3.3.1. Chao Phraya Irrigation Project by the Agricultural Land Reform Office (ALRO) ...... 3-9 3.3.2. Pasak Irrigation Project by RID (Kaeng Khoi-Ban Mo Pumping Irrigation Project) .... 3-10 3.3.3. Small Scale Irrigation Program (SSIP) and Small Scale Irrigation Improvement and Rehabilitation Project (SSIRP) by RID...... 3-11 3.3.4. Large Swamp Inland Fishery Project (LSIFP) by the Department of Fisheries (DOF) (Bung Boraped Sub-project) ...... 3-13 3.3.5. Small Swamp Inland Fisheries Project (SSIFP) by DOF ...... 3-17 3.4. The Pilot Project ...... 3-18 3.4.1. Objective of the Pilot Project ...... 3-18 3.4.2. First Selection of the Pilot Project ...... 3-18 3.4.3. Final Selection of the Pilot Project ...... 3-21 3.4.4. Design of the Pilot Project ...... 3-26 3.4.5. Implementation Plan of the Pilot Project ...... 3-48 3.5. Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 3-48 3.5.1. Conclusions ...... 3-48 3.5.2. Recommendations ...... 3-49

CHAPTER 4. COMPONENT 3: GUIDELINES FOR DISASTER-RESILIENT AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY ...... 4-1 4.1. Overview of Component 3 ...... 4-1 4.1.1. Component 3 Output ...... 4-1 4.1.2. Selection of Model Areas for Component 3 ...... 4-1 4.1.3. Preparation Process for the Guidelines and Pilot Projects ...... 4-4 4.1.4. Stakeholders in Component 3 ...... 4-8 4.1.5. Composition and Structure of the Guidelines and Technical Papers ...... 4-10 4.2. The General Guideline ...... 4-10 4.2.1. Objective: Why is Flood Disaster Resilient Plan Necessary? ...... 4-10

ii

The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

4.2.2. Target Users of the Guidelines ...... 4-11 4.2.3. Basic Concepts of the Guidelines ...... 4-11 4.2.4. Participatory Planning Process ...... 4-13 4.2.5. Risk by Areas and Priority of Formulation of Disaster-Resilient Plan ...... 4-15 4.3. Thematic Guidelines ...... 4-18 4.3.1. Community Flood Disaster Risk Management ...... 4-18 4.3.2. Community Water Resources Development and Management ...... 4-27 4.3.3. Flood Damage Reduction Measures in the Agriculture and Livestock Sector ...... 4-36 4.3.4. Income Generation Activities Towards Recovery of Rural Livelihoods ...... 4-52 4.3.5. Networking and Institutional Support for Communities ...... 4-57 4.4. Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 4-64 4.4.1. Conclusion ...... 4-64 4.4.2. Recommendations ...... 4-64

iii

The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

List of Figures Figure 1.1.1 Framework of the Project and Relationship with other JICA activities ...... 1-2 Figure 1.2.1 Project Implementation Organization ...... 1-3 Figure 1.3.1 Comparison of Flood Area in Thailand between 2008 and 2011 ...... 1-10 Figure 1.3.2 The Thai Government Administration Structure ...... 1-11 Figure 2.2.1 Marketing Channel of Beef Cattle...... 2-7 Figure 2.2.2 Marketing Channel of Broiler ...... 2-7 Figure 2.2.3 Seasonal Feeding System for Livestock in Thailan ...... 2-8 Figure 2.3.1 Organizational Structure of DLD ...... 2-9 Figure 2.3.2 Organization Chart of the Office of Livestock ...... 2-10 Figure 2.3.3 Organizational Chart of the Animal Nutrition Division ...... 2-10 Figure 2.3.3 Organizational Chart of the Animal Nutrition Division ...... 2-10 Figure 2.5.1 Distribution System of Fertilizer and Seeds/Seedlings ...... 2-15 Figure 2.7.1 Results of Evaluation at four Training Sites ...... 2-26 Figure 3.2.1 RID’s Flood Recovery and Prevention Projects by Facility Type ...... 3-2 Figure 3.3.1 Location Map of Projects Assisted by Japan ...... 3-8 Figure 3.3.2 Rate of damaged degree by 2011 flood ...... 3-12 Figure 3.5.1 Location Map of Phlai Chumphon O&M Project ...... 3-55 Figure 3.5.2 Proposed Sites for Drainage Pumping Stations and Outlet Drainage Structures at Phlai Chumphon O&M Project ...... 3-56 Figure 4.1.1 Location Map of Model Areas ...... 4-3 Figure 4.1.2 Implementation Process of Component 3 ...... 4-4 Figure 4.1.3 Structure of the Guidelines ...... 4-10 Figure 4.2.1 Disaster management Cycle ...... 4-12 Source: Project Team based on JICA 2008 ...... 4-12 Figure 4.2.2 Implementation Phase for Disaster-Resilient Agriculture and Agricultural Community Plan ...... 4-12 Figure 4.2.3 Community and Self-Help, Mutual Help and Public Help ...... 4-13 Figure 4.2.4 Participatory Planning Process for Disaster-Resilient Agriculture and Rural Community...... 4-14 Figure 4.2.5 Retention Areas proposed by RID ...... 4-16 Figure 4.2.6 Flood Countermeasure Plan by Thai Government ...... 4-17 Figure 4.3.1 Comparison of Past and Present Approaches to Community-Based Disaster Risk Management ...... 4-20 Figure 4.3.2 Process for Participatory Planning for Community Flood Disaster Risk Management ...... 4-23 Figure 4.3.3 Comparison of Topography and Hydrology between Upstream and Delta areas in the Chao Phraya River Basin ...... 4-28 Figure 4.3.4 Conceptual Design of the Water Resources Development

iv

The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

and Management Plan ...... 4-31 Figure 4.3.5 Concept of community monkey cheek development ...... 4-32 Figure 4.3.6 Discharge Record ( 2009-2011) and Flood Warning Zone at C.13 gauging station in Chao Phraya River ...... 4-34 Figure 4.3.7 Current Information Flow; RID→Province→District→Tambon ...... 4-35 Figure 4.3.8 Proposed Distributing Information/ Forecasting & Warning System RID→Tambon←Water Level Gauging Station ...... 4-35 Figure 4.3.9 Main Concept of Proposed Strategy by Stage of Flood ...... 4-36 Figure 4.3.10 Flood Countermeasure Framework in Agriculture and Livestock Sector ...... 4-39 Figure 4.3.11 Countermeasures to Reduce the Risk of Flood to Paddy Cultivation ...... 4-40 Figure 4.3.12 Countermeasures Related to Vegetable Cultivation ...... 4-45 Figure 4.3.13 Countermeasures Related to Livestock ...... 4-48 Figure 4.3.14 Flowchart of Feed Storage Planning ...... 4-49 Figure 4.3.15 Concept of Feed Stock ...... 4-50 Figure 4.3.16 Location of Forage Storage in Community Level ...... 4-51 Figure 4.3.17 Raised Floor Goat Housing ...... 4-52 Figure 4.3.18 Direct and Indirect Impact of Flood Countermeasures ...... 4-54 Figure 4.3.19 Flow Income Generation Activities ...... 4-56 Figure 4.3.20 Structure of Provincial Task Force (Example of Ayutthatya) ...... 4-58 Figure 4.3.21 Structure and Roles in Stakeholder Collaboration ...... 4-63

List of Tables Table 1.2.1 Overall Schedule for the Project ...... 1-4 Table 1.2.2 Contents of TOR by Team Member ...... 1-5 Table 1.2.3 Assignment Schedule ...... 1-6 Table 1.3.1 Thailand’s position in respect of flood disasters in Asia (2007 – 2010) ...... 1-7 Table 1.3.2 Thailand’s flood disasters between 2002/2010 and 2011 ...... 1-8 Table 1.3.3 Summary of 2011 flood damage in Livestock Sub-Sector ...... 1-9 Table 2.2.1 Contribution of Livestock GDP ...... 2-2 Table 2.2.2 Number of Dairy Cattle and Farmers in Thailand (2011) ...... 2-3 Table 2.2.3 Top 10 Provinces Raising Dairy Cattle and Number of Farmers.( 2011) ...... 2-3 Table 2.2.4 Number of Beef Cattle and Farmers in Thailand. (2011) ...... 2-3 Table 2.2.5 Top 10 Provinces of Beef Cattle Nourishing and Farm Households (2011) ...... 2-4 Table 2.2.6 Number of Chicken and Farmers.(2011) ...... 2-4 Table 2.2.7 Five Most Provinces of Poultry Population in 2011 ...... 2-4 Table 2.2.8 Number of Swine and Farmer in Thailand (2011) ...... 2-5 Table 2.2.9 Top 10 Provinces of Average Swine Nourishment per Household (2011) ...... 2-5 Table 2.4.1 Number and Percentage of the Damage on Livestock by Breed ...... 2-11 Table 2.4.2 Top 4 Provinces of Damage to Cows ...... 2-11

v

The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Table 2.4.3 Top 4 Provinces of Damage to Swine ...... 2-11 Table 2.4.4 Top 4 Provinces of Damage to Chickens ...... 2-12 Table 2.4.5 Damage to the Livestock Sector by Province ...... 2-13 Table 2.5.1 Comparison of Original Allocation Plan and Monitored Results ...... 2-16 Table 2.5.2 Number of Beneficiaries of Fertilizers ...... 2-16 Table 2.5.3 Beneficiary Areas ...... 2-16 Table 2.5.4 Distribution of Seeds ...... 2-17 Table 2.5.5 Distribution of Seedlings ...... 2-17 Table 2.6.1 Centers and Stations under the DLD ...... 2-23 Table 2.7.1 Information about the training participants ...... 2-24 Table 2.8.1 Existing Agricultural Machinery and Feed Storage in 29 ANRDCs ...... 2-31 Table 3.2.1 RID’s Flood Recovery and Prevention Projects by Facility Type ...... 3-3 Table 3.2.2 Progress of RID Rehabilitation Projects for Flood Recovery (September 24, 2012) 3-4 Table 3.2.3 Number of Projects in MTEF Plan 2012-2017 by Category ...... 3-6 Table 3.3.1 Projects Implemented through the Assistance of Japanese Funding Agencies ...... 3-7 Table 3.3.2 Result of SSIRP Inventory Survey by Province ...... 3-12 Table 3.3.3 List of Flood-Damaged Equipment (Nakhon Sawan Freshwater Fishery Development Center) ...... 3-16 Table 3.4.1 Candidates for Pilot Project ...... 3-21 Table 3.4.2 Results of Priority Study for Selection of Pilot Project ...... 3-25 Table 3.5.1 MTEF Plan for Phlai Chumphon O&M Project ...... 3-51 Table 4.1.1 Farming System of Selected Model Areas ...... 4-2 Table 4.1.2 Salient Features of the Model Areas ...... 4-5 Table 4.1.3 Number of Pilot Projects/Activities by Model Area and Sector ...... 4-7 Table 4.1.4 Government Agencies Involved in Component 3 and their Roles and Responsibilities ...... 4-9 Table 4.1.5 Universities and Institutes Involved in Component 3 ...... 4-10 Table 4.3.1 Features of the CBDRM approach ...... 4-20 Table 4.3.2 Principles of the CBDRM approach ...... 4-21 Table 4.3.3 Issues to Consider for Damage Reduction in Long-Term Inundation ...... 4-22 Table 4.3.4 Issues for community disaster risk management ...... 4-22 Table 4.3.5 Water Resources Development and Management Plan at Community Level ...... 4-30 Table 4.3.6 Typical and Proposed Cropping Calendar ...... 4-41 Table 4.3.7 Specification of Three Planting Methods: DS, TP, and PC ...... 4-43 Table 4.3.8 Main Features of Pangola Grass and Pakchong-1 ...... 4-49 Table 4.3.9 Estimation of the Floor Area ...... 4-50 Table 4.3.10 Natural and Social Environment, Issues on Flood and Income Generation Activities ...... 4-53 Table 4.3.11 Related Agencies/Stakeholders for Income Generation Activities ...... 4-55

vi

The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Table 4.3.12 Main Actors for Model Projects/Activities ...... 4-59 Table 4.3.13 Institutes and their potential areas of collaboration ...... 4-62

List of Appendixes Appendix I : Supporting Documents Appendix II : Technical Papers Appendix III : Community Case Studies

vii The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTON 1.1. Background and Project Outputs

(1) Background of the Project From the end of July 2011 and into 2012, Thailand experienced a massive flood in the Chao Phraya River Basin, with vast areas submerged and significant aftereffects that had not been experienced before in Thailand’s modern history. People living and working in this basin suffered from the huge scale of damage caused by this long-term inundation. The areas affected by this flood included Ayutthaya, residential areas of Metropolitan Bangkok and its outskirts, and several industrial estates. Economic losses due to the flood and subsequent loss of work opportunities is estimated to be between 400 and 1,300 billion baht or more than 10% of Thailand’s GDP. Damages to agriculture have been reported to be as high as 72 billion baht.

In response, the Government of Thailand established two committees to deal with long-term measures; the Strategic 2011.11.02, Source: GISTDA Committee for Reconstruction and Future Development: (SCRFD) and the Strategic Committee for Water Resources Management: (SCWRM). The former has already approved a plan to invest 2,270 billion baht to construct basic infrastructure during the coming decade. The latter presented a plan to disburse 22.6 billion baht for short-term preventive measures in preparation for the coming rainy season in 2012, and 350 billion baht to take medium ~long term measures including the delineation of flood water retention areas (paddy fields and swamps) and the construction of floodways. The Government has so far provided only limited measures for the benefit of the agricultural sector, which suffered heavy damages to over 1.44 million hectares of paddy fields,

36 thousand hectares of aquaculture ponds and a loss of 29.5 million 2011.11.28, Source: GISTDA head of livestock. These benefits are in the form of compensation for inundated farmland, free distribution of un-husked paddy, and the provision of animal feed in some affected areas. Thus, farmers who suffered from flood damage continue to face difficulties due to the lack of effective measures to provide compensation for loss of major harvests or lost income opportunities. JICA has so far dispatched experts to advise SCWRM, and in addition, is carrying out another emergency development study, Chao Phraya River Basin Flood Measures Project, as an antecedent survey of this project. Also JICA was already conducting the Integrated Study Project on Hydro-meteorological Prediction and Adaptation to Climate Change in Thailand (IMPAC-T), a science technology cooperation project, before the flood occurred. The IMPAC-T project helped establish substantial linkages, including information sharing, among key organizations involved in flood management. This current project sought close collaboration with stakeholder organizations within the framework shown in the figure below.

1-1 Introduction The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

NESDB Strategic Committee for Water MOAC-JICA Joint Resources Management (SCWRM) Coordinating Committee

RID JICA Advisory JICA Expert Committee DWRDWR JICA Thailand Office Study Team MOAC IMPAC-T

Project for Comprehensive Flood Project for Flood Countermeasures Management Plan for the Chao Phraya River for Thailand Agricultural Sector

Component 3: M/P review, update & make Component 3: Development of Guideline for Disaster resilient OAE Component 2: Outline design for Japanese Agriculture & Agricultural Grant Aid for Disaster Prevention & Reconstruction Component 2: Rehabilitation & RID Reinforcement of Damaged Irrigation Facilities Component 1: Pilot Projects of emergency rehabilitation/ urgent countermeasures to DLD protect the priority area Component 1: Pasture Reproduction

Figure 1.1.1 Framework of the Project and Relationship with other JICA activities

(2) Project Outputs The outputs of this project are: 1) recovery of productivity of damaged pastures, 2) guidelines on rehabilitation and reinforcement of irrigation facilities, and 3) guidelines on disaster-resilient agriculture and agricultural community planning. Thus, through this project, JICA will provide support to both short-term and long-term efforts of the Government of Thailand in the agricultural sector. (3) Study Area of the Project The study areas under this project include the watershed of the Chao-Phraya River as the main-stream basin; the Yom River basin adjacent to the mid-stream area of the Chao Phraya River where damage was caused by the large 2011 flood; a part of the Nan River basin; t h e Pa Sak River basin, adjacent to the Nakhong Sawan downstream area of the Chao Phraya River; and t h e Tha Chin River basin. During the flood, 63 out of 77 provinces (changwat) in Thailand, including the Study Area Bangkok Northern and Northeastern Regions, suffered damage. This project concentrates on the areas in the middle o f t h e Chao Phraya Delta.

JICA 1-2 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report 1.2. Implementing Agencies and Implementing System of the Project

(1) Implementing Agencies The government counterpart organization for this project is the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC), and the Deputy Permanent Secretary of MOAC chairs the Joint Consultative Committee (JCC). There are three components to this project. Component 1 was managed by the Department of Livestock Development (DLD), component 2 was managed by the Royal Irrigation Department (RID), and component 3 was managed by the Office of Agricultural Economics (OAE). Other organizations in MOAC, such as the Agricultural Land Reform Office (ALRO), the Land Development Department (LDD), the Department of Agricultural Extension (DOAE), and the Department of Rice (DOR) are members of the JCC. These government organizations in charge of project management are also implementing bodies for projects under SCWRM, therefore the Project Team shared information and collaborated closely with all organizations. Implementing System of the Project

To execute this project, JICA organized a Project Team consisting of Sanyu Consultants Inc. and Nippon Koei Co. Ltd. The counterpart organizations on the Government of Thailand side consisted of the MOAC in which the main counterpart organizations were DLD, RID and the OAE. These agencies worked with the Project Team for the project. Furthermore, with a view to coordinate the various agencies and organizations concerned, the JCC was established under the leadership of the MOAC. This project team adopted a group management system, co-led by “Leader/Project Planning” and “Sub-Leader/Rural Infrastructure” under which three component teams were organized, each aiming to fulfilling the outputs of each component.

Figure 1.2.1 Project Implementation Organization

1-3 Introduction The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report (2) Work Plan

The project consisted of two phases of field surveys. The first phase was from March to July 2012, and the second started in August 2012 and ended in June 2013. The overall schedule for the project is outlined below in Table 1.2.1. Table 1.2.1 Overall Schedule for the Project

Year 2012 2013 Study Schedule First Field Survey Second Field Survey Month 345678910111212345678 Rainy and Dry Season Dry Rain Dry Rain Submission on Report/ JCC Meeting ICR ITR D/FR FR Component I: Supports for reproduction of pastures Monitoring on the distribution of fertilizer and I-1 seeds/seedling I-2 Training on sustainable production of pasture Proposition of quick recovery plan of pasture I-3 production after the Flood Component II:Rehabilitation and reinforcement of irrigation facilities

2.1 Flood recovery and prevention works tackled by RID

Confirmation survey for Flood Damage on Irrigation 2.2 Facilities (1) Irrigation and Facilities operated by RID (2) Japan assisted Projects in the Past 2.3 Selection and review of Pilot Project, cancellation Study on Countermeasures and Recommendations 2.4

Component III：Guideline for disaster resilient agriculture and agricultural community 3.1 Selection and grasp in detail of model areas Flood Damage Survey in Model Area, PRA/Community 3.2 Study 3.3 Collection of Good Practices Participatory Planning Process for Disaster Resilient 3.4 Community 3.5 Pilot Project Activities (1) Selection of Pilot/ Activity (2) Implementation (3) Monitoring (4) Lessons Learned from Pilot Projects 3.6 Set-up Provincial Task Force 3.7 Preparation of Technical Papers Formulation of Guideline for disaster resilient 3.8 agriculture and agricultural community (Draft) 3.9 Final Workshop

Site Survey by Advisory T eam

(4) Composition of the Project Team and their TORs

The Project Team was composed of 27 members. The members’ TORs and final assignment schedule are summarized in Tables 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 respectively.

(5) Composition of the Report

This Project is an emergency study in support of the recovery from the 2011 flood disaster in the agricultural sector. Specifically, the project supports countermeasures for livestock, irrigation & drainage as well as activities to increase disaster resilience of the rural community. Because the components were relatively independent in terms of outputs, content, timing, conclusions and recommendations, the report is compiled independently as follows. Information on Component 1 is found in Chapter 2: Support for the reproduction of pastures, Component 2 is in Chapter 3: Rehabilitation and reinforcement of irrigation facilities, and Component 3 is in Chapter 4: Guidelines for disaster-resilient agriculture and agricultural community.

JICA 1-4 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Table 1.2.2 Contents of TOR by Team Member

Name Task/TOR Assignments Overall management (under a group management system） Michio Goto Team leader ／Project • Operational management of overall Project Planning • Consultation with C/P on the implementation and management of projects Tetsuro Oda Co-Team leader ／Rural • Summarizing the Guideline infrastructure • Summarizing various reports and explanation to stakeholders Component 1: recovery of productivity on pasture land Kensuke Iriya Livestock I-1 Monitoring on the distribution of fertilizer and seeds/seedlings Ken Kozai Training supervision ／ I-2 Training on sustainable production of pasture I-3 Proposal for quick recovery plan of pasture production after the Flood Yoshinao Monitoring (1) Adachi Monitoring (2) Component 2: Rehabilitation and reinforcement of irrigation facilities Syunich Hosono Sub-leader/ irrigation plan1 II-1 Assessment of the status of recovery works for irrigation facilities by Thai Hironori Irrigation plan 2 counterparts Takahasi II-2-1 Situation assessment for flood recovery and prevention on irrigation & drainage Kosaku Outline design 1 Chichibu facilities operated by RID Takashi Misaki Outline design 2 II-2-2 Damage assessment and consideration of measures for JICA supported irrigation and other agricultural related facilities Nobutoshi Outline design 3 II-3-1 Selection of pilot project area and its design Eguchi Tsutomu Senda Detailed design II-4-1 Implementation of the pilot project, canceled by JICA in August 2012 Itsuo Kihara Cost estimation II-4-2 Advice and recommendation for formulating the direction of the rehabilitation plan Component 3: Creation of disaster resilient agriculture/ rural communities Tetsuro Oda Sub-leader／Rural III-1 Selection of Model Areas and Site Survey infrastructure III-2 Flood Damage Survey in Model Areas Nakorn Survey of flood damages III-3 III-3 Participatory Planning Process Najaroon （Rural village survey）1 III-4 Model Activity and Project to Mitigate Flood Damage Tatsuhiko Survey of flood damages III-5 Review of Government Policy and Programs Hiraiwa （Rural village survey） 2 III-6 Implementation of Pilot Activities and Projects Fusataka Arakawa Irrigation plan III-7 Formulating a plan for disaster resilient agriculture and agricultural community in model area Takehiro Iwaki Community disaster control III-8 Final Workshop, inclusion of lessons learned from the pilot activities into Hideaki Hiruta Farming plan Guideline for disaster resilient agriculture and agricultural community Fumihiro Nagao Rice paddy cultivation III-9 Formulation of Guideline for disaster resilient agriculture and agricultural Shinichi Arai Horticulture/ Community agricultural machinery Keisuke Agricultural marketing Shimizu Kensuke Iriya Livestock Design of Livestock Facilities and select priority projects for Pilot Activities Nobutoshi Designer of Facilities Design of Facilities and Supervision Eguchi Kensuke Iriya Pilot Project management A Management of Pilot Activities, especially Livestock Yoshinao Pilot Project management B Management of Pilot Activities Adachi Common items Sachiko Hirano GIS • Analysis and cartography of geographic information required for the activities • mentioned above • Provision of references for presentation Yuzuru Tomioka Organization/ institution • Collaboration and coordination among related ministries and departments Coordination among • required for the above-cited activities ministries concerned • Analysis of organizations/institutions at ministerial level and rural community level

Akane Chiba Project coordinator • Coordination of meetings between related agencies concerned, etc. and accounting

1-5 Introduction

Table 1.2.3 Assignment Schedule 2012 2013 MM Field Name 3456789101112123456FieldHomeTotal 10 12 1 4 Team Leader/Project Plan Michio GOTO 23 7 <57 > 18 <64 > 11 <38> 18 <21> 21 <69> 11 <12> 19 8.73 8.73 23 22 3 10 27 27 31 12 20 7 Co-Team Leader/Rural 8 14 2 20 9.10 9.10 Infrustructure Teturo ODA <20> 11 <39> 30 <6> <30 日 > 8 <15> 10 <18> <3> <84> 5 <45> 3 <14> 16 10 Livestock Kensuke IRIYA <76> 30 <57> 4 4.43 4.43 23 10 Training Plan/Monitoring (1) Ken KOZAI 1.60 1.60 <18> 9 <30> 8 15 Training Plan/Monitoring (2) Yoshinao Adachi 2.00 2.00 <60> 13 ork 16 23 Co-Team Leader/Irrigation Planner Shunich HOSONO <75> 29 <75> 5 5.00 5.00 16 4 15 Irrigation Planner 2 Hironori 3.20 TAKAHASHI <45> 30 <30> 2 <21> 5

Field Survey W Field Survey 10 3.20 Outline Designer 1 Kosaku CHICHIBU <45> 23 1.50 1.50 10 Outline Designer 2 Takashi MISAKI <45> 23 1.50 1.50 15 1 Outline Designer 3 Atsutossi EGUCHI <60> 13 <45> 14 3.50 4.403.50 6 Detailed Design Planner Tutomu SENDA <45> 19 1.50 23 Cost Estimation Itsuo Kihara <30> 21 1.00 1.00 GIS Sachiko Hirano 10 24 15 1.50 <45> 23 <60> 22 <27> 10 4.40 23 23 Flood Damage Surveyor 1 NaKorn Najaroon 6.50 6.50 <15> 6 <60> 21 <120> 23 17 1-6 Flood Damage Surveyor 2 Tatsuhiko HIRAIWA <60> 21 <30> 15 3.00 3.00 7 14 17 1 Irrigation Planner 1 Fusataka ARAKAWA <45> 20 <21> 3 <54> 9 <64> 5 6.13 Community Disaster Planner Takehiro IWAKI 6.00 6.00 <105> <75> 25 2 5 15 25 16 6.13 Frming Planner Hideaki HIRUTA 25 <17> 10 <38> 8 <21> <27> 10 <40> (5) <16> (1) 5.30 5.30 2 11 Rice Cropping Fumihiro NAGAO <60> 30 <45> 25 3.50 3.50 1331 26 15 Horticulture/Farm Machinery Shinich ARAI 12 <30> 11 <13> <65> 29 <87> 11 6.50 6.50 23 18 15 6 Marketing/Distribution Keisuke SHIMIZU <45> <32> 19 <28> 11 3.50 3.50 Organization/Institution/ 7 23 18 11 1 6.50 6.50 Collaboration among ministerial Yuzuru TOMIOKA <57> <63> 12 <45>15 <30> 5 representatives 6 Livestock Kensuke IRIYA <45> 19 1.50 1.50 Design and Supervison of 14 Atsutossi EGUCHI <45> 28 1.50 1.50 Structures for Pilot Activities 21 Pilot Management (A) Kensuke IRIYA <35> 27 1.17 1.17 23 18 Pilot Management (A) Yoshinao Adachi 21 3.10 3.10 <60> <40> 19 1 1 1 1 Coordinator Akane Chiba 30 5.50 5.50 <30> <30> 30 <45> 14 <60> 29 Total 101.66 101.66 Team Leader/Project Plan Michio GOTO 1.07 1.07 6days 18days 8days Co-Team Leader/Rural 0.20 0.20 Teturo ODA 6days

ork Infrustructure Component (2) 0.70 0.70 Shunich HOSONO 15days

ffice W ffice Co-Team Leader/Irrigation Planner O GIS Sachiko Hirano 6days 0.70 0.70 <6days 15 days Total 2.67 2.67 △ Report △ △ △ ICR ITR DFR FR 101.66 2.67 104.33 Grand Total Regend ; : Field Work in Thailand : Home Office Work in Japan The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

1.3. Challenges for the Flood Countermeasures in Thailand

1.3.1. The Characteristics of Natural Disasters in Thailand (1) General

Thailand had long been considered as one of the most favored countries in Asia, in terms of a low incidence of severe natural disasters such as earthquakes, storms, flash floods and volcano eruptions. These disasters have often led to large-scale destruction to people’s lives and property in other Asian countries with more frequent natural disasters such as China, India, Philippines and Bangladesh. The situation, however, changed when Thailand experienced the Indian Ocean Tsunami disaster in December 2004 with the loss of as many as 8,345 lives and tremendous damage to property. The situation further worsened with the flood disaster in 2011.

(2) Thailand’s position in respect of flood disasters in Asia (2007 – 2010)

Prior to discussing the damage caused by the 2011 flood disaster, the position of Thailand overall in the Asia region will be reviewed by analyzing the data from the Asian Disaster Reduction Center (ADRC) in Kobe, Japan. The ADRC data only covers the four years from 2007 to 2010, but they are adequate as background information for Thailand’s 2011 flood.

Based on the ADRC Natural Disaster Data Book (2007-2010), the damage caused by floods in Thailand and all 23 Asian member nations during the period can be seen in Table 1.3.1.

Table 1.3.1 Thailand’s position in respect of flood disasters in Asia (2007 – 2010)

Year People killed People affected Cos of damage 2007 53 183,000 1,500 Thailand 6,749 156,128,983 7,595,175 (Total- 23 nations) (0.8 %) (0.1 %) (0.02 %) (Share by Thailand) 2008 39 1,572,157 27,844 Thailand 2,763 27,956,209 3,722,183 (Total- 21 nations) (1.4 %) (5.6 %) (0.7 %) (Share by Thailand) 2009 15 200,000 0 Thailand 2,461 52,532,514 5,367,310 (Total- 19 nations) (0.6 %) (0.4 %) (0 %) (Share by Thailand) 2010 258 8,970,653 332,000 Thailand 6,344 179,236,982 31,335,000 (Total- 21 nations) (4 .1%) (5.0 %) (1.1 %) (Share by Thailand) Note: The cost of damage is shown in units of US$‘000

In 2007, the country with the highest economic loss due to floods was China accounting for 64% of total economic loss by Asian countries, followed by Indonesia (12%) and Vietnam (7 %). Japan suffered the biggest loss in Asia in 2007 with an earthquake causing US$ 12.5 billion in damage.

In 2008, the three top countries with the highest economic losses due to floods were China (64%), Vietnam (13%) and Yemen (11%). China also suffered severe damage in 2008 from earthquakes, extreme temperatures and storms with losses totaling US$ 85.5 billion, US$21.1 billion and US$ 2 million respectively. Myanmar also suffered storm damage totaling US$ 4 billion..

In 2009, the three countries with the highest loss due to floods were India (45%), China (26%) and Philippines (17%). China lost US$ 5.9 billion due to drought and US$ 3.6 billion due to storms, while Indonesia suffered a devastating earthquake with damages reaching US$ 2.4 billion.

1-7 Introduction The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final ReportReport In 2010, the three countries with highest economic damage due to floods were China (US$ 18.2 b illion), Pakistan (US$ 9.5 b illion) and Indonesia (US$ 78 million). The 2010 flood damage in Thailand was more severe as compared with the period 1961-2000 as well as with 2002-2010, as will be reviewed in the following section. Nevertheless, the damage was limited relative to other countries that suffered major damage due to floods. Other types of disasters were not very substantial in the Asia region in 2010. More details about the history and situation of natural disasters in Thailand are described in Appendix I-A-7.

It can be seen that prior to 2011, Thailand was a nation that suffered limited flood damage compared with other nations in Asia. However, in recent years, due mainly to the change of people’s lifestyles and the effects of global warming, Thailand has become more vulnerable to flood disasters.

(3) The 2011 Flood Disaster

However in 2011, Thailand experienced a flood disaster unlike any that had previously been seen in its modern history. The ADRC Report, “Thailand Country Profile 2011” describes the 2011 flood as follows. “Severe flooding occurred during the 2011 monsoon season in Thailand. Beginning at the end of July triggered by the landfall of Tropical Storm Nock-Ten, flooding soon spread through the provinces of Northern, Northeastern and Central Thailand along the Mekong and Chao Phraya basins. In October flood waters reached the mouth of the Chao Phraya and inundated parts of the capital city of Bangkok. Flooding persisted in some areas until mid-January 2012, and resulted in a total of 815 deaths (as of Jan 17, 2012) (with 3 missing) and 13.6 million people in 4 regions affected. Sixty-five of Thailand’s 77 provinces were declared flood disaster zones, and over 20,000 square kilometers of farm land was damaged. The disaster has been described as ‘the worst flooding yet in terms of the amount of water and people affected.’ The World Bank has estimated 1,425 billion baht (US$ 45.7 billion) in economic damages and losses due to flooding, as of December 1st, 2011. Most of this was to the manufacturing industry, as seven major industrial estates were inundated by as much as 3 meters (10 feet) during the floods.”

In Table 1.3.2, damage by the 2011 flood disaster is compared with the averages for the period between 2002 and 2010. Since the flood damage in this period was already worse compared to the years prior, the comparison highlights the size, seriousness and the magnitude of the 2011 flood disaster.

Table 1.3.2 Thailand’s flood disasters between 2002/2010 and 2011

Items/periods 2002-2010 2011 Ratio increased Number of disasters 9.22 ------People killed 141.8 815 495 % People injured 355.0 ------People affected 6,923,395 13,600,000 196 % Total damage cost US$ 229 mil US$ 4,570 mil 1,800 %

The big difference in terms of the total cost of damage of the 2002-2010 period and the amount in 2011 can mainly be attributed to the inundation of the industrial estates.

1.3.2. Damage in the Agricultural Sector by the 2011 Flood Disaster

(1) National level

Out of a total of 77 provinces in Thailand, 65 provinces were declared “disaster affected areas” by

JICA 1-8 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report the 2011 flood. The most seriously affected areas were in the low-lying Chao Phraya plains including the areas with large-scale irrigation schemes and high-value industrial estates located near Ayutthaya. Nationally, as many as 1.09 million farmers were affected and 10.6 million rai (1.7 million ha) of farmland was damaged.

For the crop sub-sector, the 2011 flood disaster resulted in nationwide damages worth 17.8 billion baht, based on estimated compensation costs, with 10.6 billion baht for rice and 7.3 billion baht for field crops.

With regards the livestock sub-sector, the disaster resulted in a total of 29.4 million animals lost, 14,400 rai (2,300 ha) of pasture fields destroyed and 220,000 farmers affected. The total financial losses are estimated at 6.5 billion baht, based on the compensation value of animals as indicated in the MOAC Manual for Aid to Disaster Victims. The breakdown of animals lost is reported as in Table 1.3.3.

Table 1.3.3 Summary of 2011 flood damage in Livestock Sub-Sector

Name of animal Number of loss Compensation Name of animal Number of loss Compensation payable/head payable/head Cow 319,361 15,800 Buffalo 35,629 15,800 Pig 296,880 1,200 Goat 29,272 1,400 Sheep 1,826 1,400 Duck 4,678,616 15 Native chicken 6,821,675 22.5 Egg & meat 14,248,675 15 chicken Quail 2,945,148 12 Goose 30,950 50 Total (head) 29,408,032 Total Amount (THB) 6,482,921,528 In the fishery sub-sector, the number of districts (amphoe) that suffered damage was 699 with 142,842 farmers affected. As many as 156,764 ponds and 18,912 stews were damaged with an estimated economic loss of 4 billion baht. In summary, the total damage by the 2011 flood in the agricultural sector is calculated at 28.4 billion baht, based on compensation estimates. This accounts for about 2 % of the total national damage of 1,425 billion baht for all sectors. However, if the total economic loss caused by the 2011 flood in the agricultural sector is assumed at 72 billion baht, as announced by OAE in November 2011, the percentage of damage loss in the agriculture sector works out to 5% of the total national damage.

While the scale of the total damage incurred by the 2011 flood was exceptionally large, flood-prone areas of the country experience damage from flooding regularly, one or twice every several years. For instance, flood-related damage in 2011 was comparable to that in 2006 and 2012 for many flood- prone areas in this Project’s Study Area. Therefore, for people in these areas who live with floods, it is particularly vital for them to have plans for water management, farming and improved livelihoods..

(2) Maps showing flooded areas in 2008 and 2011.

The year 2008 is considered to represent an average year for flood damage during the 5 year period from 2006 to 2010 in terms of the size of the area usually flooded. This data was prepared by GISTDA. To illustrate the magnitude of the 2011 flood, the flood area maps of 2008 and 2011 are presented in Figure 1.3.1. The total area flooded in 2011 was 27 million rai (43,200 km2), or three times the flooded area in 2008 which affected 9 million rai (14,400 km2).

(3) Provincial/model areas at local level

Details of the damage in the agricultural sector at the local level are described in Appendixes I -

1-9 Introduction The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final ReportReport D-4 Flood Damage in Agricultural Sector in Model Area Provinces and I - D-5 2011 Flood Damage in Model Areas.

316000 516000 716000 916000 1116000 316000 516000 716000 916000 1116000

2377000 2377000 2377000

2177000 2177000 2177000

1977000 1977000 1977000

1777000 1777000 1777000

1577000 1577000 1577000

1377000 1377000 1377000

1177000 1177000 1177000

977000 977000 977000

777000 777000 777000

577000 577000 577000

5025 0 50 100 150 200 5025 0 50 100 150 200 Data Source: GISTDA km Data Source: GISTDA km

316000 516000 716000 916000 1116000 316000 516000 716000 916000 1116000

Figure 1.3.1 Comparison of Flood Area in Thailand between 2008 and 2011

JICA 1-10 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report 1.3.3. Organization and Institutional Background of the Project The administration system of the Government of Thailand (GOT) is highly centralized and the organizations are well-developed and functional, although some sectionalism can be seen.

In 2002, a major government administrative reform was implemented, and the government structure changed from of 13 ministries plus the Office of the Prime Minister to 19 ministries plus the Office of the Prime Minister. The current administration structure is shown in the following figure. (Asterisk (*) denotes ministries established in the 2002 reform.)

Government of Thailand, Cabinet

Office of the Prime Minister Ministry of Commerce

Ministry of Defense Ministry of Interior

Ministry of Finance Ministry of Justice

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ministry of Labor

Ministry of Tourism and Sports* Ministry of Culture*

Ministry of Social Development &Human Security* Ministry of Science & Technology

Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Education Cooperatives

Ministry of Transport Ministry of Public Health

Ministry of Energy * Ministry of Industry

Ministry of Information & Ministry of Natural Resources & Communication Environment*

Figure 1.3.2 The Thai Government Administration Structure

In the above, the ministries closely related with the current project are: 1) the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, which is responsible for the overall agriculture sector, 2) the Ministry of Interior, which is in charge of national level disaster prevention and mitigation as well as provincial and local administration, and 3) the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM). The OPM coordinates among various government ministries and agencies, including high-level policy-making or planning bodies such as the NESDB, the Bureau of the Budget and the Office of the National Security Council. In addition, high-level national committees on National Water Resources and

1-11 Introduction The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final ReportReport Flood Policy (NWFPC) and the Water and Flood Management Committee (WFMC), which reports to the NWFPC, are established under this Office. The Office of the National Water and Flood Management Policy (ONWFMP) was established under the two Committees mentioned above as the secretariat to manage work plans, supervise and follow up on the policies formulated. The roles and responsibilities of the government ministries and bodies involved in prevention and mitigation of flood damages are described in Appendixes I-A-3-1, I-A-3-2 and I-A-3-3.

1.3.4. Supporting activities by JICA and other donors

In response to the request from the Government of Thailand or because of the extraordinary scale of flood damage, donors other than JICA have also supported recovery efforts, such as through repair and rehabilitation of infrastructure or through technical policy-level support against flooding in future. Main initiatives are listed below, and details of each project are described in Appendix I-A-5-1.

Name of supporting activities

 The Project for Comprehensive Flood Management Plan for the Chao Phraya River Basin in Kingdom of Thailand by JICA  The Project on Capacity Development in Disaster Management in Thailand (Phase II) by JICA  Support for Thailand’s Flood Management Knowledge Forum by Asian Development Bank (ADB)  FAO support for flood- affected livestock farmers in Thailand

JICA 1-12 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

CHAPTER 2. COMPONENT 1: SUPPORT FOR THE REPRODUCTION OF PASTURES 2.1. Background

2.1.1. Monitoring of the Distribution and the Use of Seedlings and Fertilizers

Livestock farmers experienced huge damage from the big 2011 flood. Many animals died, and pastures were damaged due to inundation lasting two to three months. The DLD provided 2,750 tons of hay and silage and 1,500 tons of fresh forage from their stores to the 52 provinces and to 20,250 livestock farmers as an emergency measure, but this amount was not enough. Moreover, the DLD budget was insufficient to procure fertilizers and pasture seeds for emergency support. As a result, the DLD requested JICA to provide fertilizers and technical support for the production and management of the pastures in the flood damaged areas.

JICA in cooperation with the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) provided and distributed compound fertilizer (15-15-15) along with urea and forage seeds and seedlings to promote the recovery of pastures that were damaged by the 2011 flood. The amount of fertilizers includes 1,000 tons of compound fertilizer (15-15-15) and 200 tons of urea which was intended to be distributed to 3,826 farmers who suffered losses from the flood. In addition, 20 tons of forage seeds and 120 tons of seedlings procured from DLD’s Seed Center were also distributed. Distribution from the Animal Nutrition Research and Development Center (ANRDC) in Chainat to 29 centers and stations covering the whole country was managed and conducted by DLD. The farmers received fertilizers and seeds and seedlings from the center or station in their respective areas.

The Project Team monitored how the fertilizers were distributed and used on individual farms to assess the effectiveness of this operation.

2.1.2. Training on sustainable pasture production (and disaster risk management)

In Thailand, beef cattle, dairy cows, goats, sheep and poultry are raised mainly by small-scale livestock farmers relying on feed stocks, grazing on grass lands, improved pastures and crop residues such as rice straw. However, most of the farmers are not aware of pasture management and livestock management. As a result of not understanding the importance of keeping fodder and rotating pastures, both their livestock and their pastures suffered damage from the 2011 flood. In order for the farmers to keep the livestock in good, healthy condition, and get income from the animals, it is necessary to prepare alternative feed sources of adequate quantity and quality.

The Project Team designed training modules for farmers to improve their knowledge and skills in various topics from pasture establishment and management to animal health. The training included practical sessions.

2.1.3. Policy Recommendations for Recovery from Disaster

The flood in 2011 caused huge damage to the livestock sector. Such disasters may take place again in the future; therefore the Thai government and the people have to be prepared to deal with another possible disaster. In this regard, the Project Team recommended possible countermeasures to cope with floods and implement possible pilot projects in the selected model areas linking with Component- 3 to establish farming communities which are disaster resilient.

2-1 DLD The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

2.1.4. Activities of Component 1

The output of the Component-1 is that recovery of productivity of damaged pasture lands is promoted. To attain this output, the following activities were carried out: 1) Monitoring the distribution and use of seedlings and fertilizers, 2) Training on sustainable pasture production (and disaster risk management), and 3) Policy recommendations for recovery and preparation from imminent disasters.

2.2. General Overview of the Livestock Sector in Thailand

(1) Contribution to the National Economy and Exports 1) The National Economy and the Livestock Sector. The contribution of the agricultural sector to the national economy has been declining since the 1980s. The agriculture sector accounted for 12.5% of GDP in the early 1990s; however it had fallen to 11.6% by 2008 (Thailand Development Research Institute 2008), as shown in Table 2.2.1. In 2000, the livestock sector’s share in the agricultural GDP was the highest at 23.6%, which corresponded to only 2.5% of the total GDP, according to FAO statistics.

Table 2.2.1 Contribution of Livestock GDP

Share of Share of Share of GDP Livestock Agricultural Livestock Year (Million GDP in GDP in GDP in Agr. total Baht) Total GDP(%) GDP(%) GDP(%) 1980 662,482 23.2 17.9 - 1990 2,182,545 12.5 23.0 2.9

2000 4,922,731 10. 23.6 2.5

2008 9,104,959 11.6 --

Source: FAO RAP-P2002.23 (2) Government Policy on the Livestock Sector The government policy on the livestock sector for 2011-2012 is shown in Appendix I-B-1. The DLD raises three important issues in their policies; 1) to supply safe animal products by maintaining animal health and preserving the environment, 2) to involve livestock farmers themselves in the prevention of animal diseases and reduction of infectious diseases in order to supply safe organic foods, and 3) to maintain animal feed stocks and to establish a system to supply feed in times of natural disasters.

(3) Number of Livestock and Farmers 1) Number of Dairy Cows and Livestock Farmers In 2011 the total number of dairy cows in the country was 560,659 and they were being raised by 20,645 livestock farmers, as seen in Table 2.2.2.

JICA 2-2 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report Table 2.2.2 Number of Dairy Cattle and Farmers in Thailand (2011)

Region Total Dairy Cattle (Head) Farm Household Average per Head % No. % Farm Household (head) Total 560,659 100.0 20,645 100.0 27.2 1 173,289 30.9 5,748 27.5 30.2 2 42,163 7.5 1,552 7.5 27.2 3 103,616 18.5 3,676 17.8 28.2 4 28,326 5.1 1,200 5.8 23.6 5 53,273 9.5 1,894 9.2 28.1 6 7,761 1.4 391 1.9 19.9 7 147,541 26.3 5,764 27.9 25.6 8 1,791 0.3 137 0.7 13.1 9 2,899 0.5 283 1.4 10.2 Source: DLD statistics 2011

2) Top 10 provinces with dairy cattle in 2011 The province with the highest number of dairy cows was Saraburi where 104,372 heads were raised by 3,336 farmers, followed by Nakhon Ratchasima, and thirdly Ratchaburi.

Table 2.2.3 Top 10 Provinces Raising Dairy Cattle and Number of Farmers.( 2011)

No. Province Dairy cattle Farm Household Average per Farm Head % No. % Household (head) 1 Saraburi 104,37 18 3,33 16.2 31.3 2 Nakhon 93,533 16 3,16 15.3 29.6 3 Ratchaburi 53,812 9.6 2,39 11.6 22.5 4 Lopburi 66,162 11.8 2,23 10.8 29.6 5 Sa Kaew 35,116 6.26 1,30 6.3 26.9 6 Kanchanaburi 26,868 4.79 1,23 6.0 21.8 7 Chiang Mai 31,569 5.63 1,14 5.6 27.6 8 Prachuap Khiri 35,259 6.29 965 4.7 36.5 9 Nakhon Pathom 22,672 4.04 861 4.2 26.3 10 Khon Kaen 13,630 2.43 499 2.4 27.3 Source: DLD statistics, 2011

3) Number of Beef Cattle and Livestock Farmers In 2011 the total number of beef cattle in Thailand was 6,583,106, being reared by 1,035,072 farmers as shown in Table 2.2.4. Table 2.2.4 Number of Beef Cattle and Farmers in Thailand. (2011)

Total Beef Cattle (head) Farm Household Region Average/Household Head % No. % (head) Total 6,583,106 100.00 1,035,072 100 6.36 1 419,690 6.38 24,956 2.41 16.82 2 191,663 2.91 18,805 1.82 10.19 3 2,087,283 31.71 412,589 39.86 5.06 4 1,220,500 18.54 247,972 23.96 4.92 5 649,110 9.86 70,444 6.81 9.21 6 561,133 8.52 39,940 3.86 14.05 7 719,022 10.92 51,887 5.01 13.86 8 285,186 4.33 62,355 6.02 4.57 9 449,519 6.83 106,124 10.25 4.24 Source: DLD statistics 2011

2-3 DLD The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

4) Top 10 provinces with Beef Cattle in 2011 The province with the highest number of beef cattle was Nakhon Ratchasima with 388,108 heads accounting for 5.90%, followed by Srisaket, and thirdly Ubon Ratchathani.

Table 2.2.5 Top 10 Provinces of Beef Cattle Nourishing and Farm Households (2011)

No. Beef Cattle (head) Farm Households Average/Household Province Head % No. % (head) 1 Nakhon Ratchasima 388,108 5.90 49,004 4.73 7.92 2 Srisaket 294,556 4.47 66,822 6.46 4.41 3 Ubon Ratchathani 290,430 4.41 61,645 5.96 4.71 4 Surin 282,856 4.30 60,342 5.83 4.69 5 Roi Et 247,373 3.76 59,729 5.77 4.14 6 Buriram 237,964 3.61 45,611 4.41 5.22 7 Khon Kaen 225,113 3.42 45,983 4.44 4.90 8 Sakon Nakhon 204,394 3.10 39,987 3.86 5.11 9 Mahasarakham 199,285 3.03 48,119 4.65 4.14 10 Nakhon Si Thammarat 160,569 2.44 36,334 3.51 4.42 Source: DLD statistics 2011

5) Number of Poultry and Farmers In 2011 the total number of poultry in Thailand was 316,536,364 birds reared by 2,714,283 farmers as shown in the table below.

Table 2.2.6 Number of Chicken and Farmers.(2011)

Total Chicken (Bird) Farm Household Average/ household Region Bird % No. % (bird) Total 316,536,364 100.00 2,714,283 100.00 116.62 1 76,684,797 24.86 127,073 4.68 619.21 2 69,576,264 21.98 108,768 4.01 639.68 3 50,595,537 15.98 812,351 29.93 62.28 4 20,189,986 6.38 559,722 20.62 36.07 5 19,820,720 6.26 402,046 14.81 49.30 6 23,588,321 7.45 262,677 9.68 89.80 7 29,776,516 9.41 79,618 2.93 373.99 8 12,147,265 3.84 156,833 5.78 77.45 9 12,156,958 3.84 205,195 7.56 59.25 Source: DLD statistics 2011

6) Top 5 provinces with most poultry in 2011 The province that raised the highest number of Poultry was Lopburi rearing 35,118,540birds, accounting for 11.09%, followed by Chonburi, and Saraburi.

Table 2.2.7 Five Most Provinces of Poultry Population in 2011

Total Chicken (Bird) Farm Household Average/Household No. Province Bird % No. % (bird) 1 Lopburi 35,118,54 11.09 29,208 1.08 1,202.36 2 Chonburi 26,876,93 8.49 19,212 0.71 1,398.97 3 Saraburi 22,836,55 7.21 14,689 0.54 1,554.67 4 Nakhon Ratchasima 20,980,30 6.63 171,075 6.30 122.64 5 Prachinburi 16,355,20 5.17 12,525 0.46 1,305.80

Source: DLD statistics 2011

JICA 2-4 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report 7) Number of Swine and Farmers In 2011 the total number of swine in the country was 9,681,774 heads raised by 227,406 farmers, as seen in Table 2.2.8 below.

Table 2.2.8 Number of Swine and Farmer in Thailand (2011)

Total Swine (head) Farm Household Region Average/household Head % No. % (head) Total 9,681,774 100.00 227,406 100.00 42.57 1 1,098,703 11.35 7,567 3.33 145.20 2 1,821,213 18.81 4,968 2.18 366.59 3 1,084,503 11.20 51,469 22.63 21.07 4 583,957 6.03 29,353 12.91 19.89 5 1,067,507 11.03 65,492 28.80 16.30 6 666,768 6.89 27,464 12.08 24.28 7 2,253,536 23.28 9,051 3.98 248.98 8 541,521 5.59 19,503 8.58 27.77 9 564,066 5.83 12,539 5.51 44.98 Source: DLD statistics 2011 8) The top 10 provinces that raised Swine in 2011 The Province that raised the highest number of swine was Ratchaburi, accounting for 15.42% (1,442,560 head) of the total swine raised in the country, followed by Chonburi and Nakhon Pathom.

Table 2.2.9 Top 10 Provinces of Average Swine Nourishment per Household (2011)

Swine (head) Farmer Household Average/household No. Province Head % No. % (head) 1 Ratchaburi 1,492,560 15.42 1,523 0.67 980.01 2 Chonburi 953,190 9.85 653 0.29 1,459.71 3 Nakhon Pathom 511,563 5.28 1,912 0.84 267.55 4 Chachoengsao 314,797 3.25 529 0.23 595.08 5 Saraburi 220,741 2.28 413 0.18 534.48 6 Prachinburi 159,874 1.65 596 0.26 268.24 7 Nakhonnayok 142,035 1.47 267 0.12 531.97 8 Chanthaburi 92,553 0.96 353 0.16 262.19 9 Rayong 70,554 0.73 270 0.12 261.31 10 Ayutthaya 39,976 0.41 193 0.08 207.13

Source: DLD statistics 2011

(4) Livestock Production 1) Beef Production The cattle industry in Thailand largely consists of small farms. Cattle have been kept traditionally for draft purposes while meat was merely a by-product. The recent trend shows that the cattle industry in Thailand still very much remains a small farm industry. The limited land available means that obtaining feed is likely to be a problem for the operators of these farms, particularly during the dry season (FAO RAP, 2002a). There are three different types of beef farms in Thailand: (i) Breeding farms that mainly sell breeding stock to other farmers (the number of these farms has decreased in recent times due to the unfavorable market conditions); (ii) Traditional farms that usually have small backyard operations with cattle being occasionally used as draft animals and only slaughtered at old age and therefore only producing low quality beef; and. (iii) Feedlot operations where the sole purpose is to fatten cattle before slaughter. The feedlot operators either purchase old stock from

2-5 DLD The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report traditional farms or fatten stock for two to three months for slaughter and then sell at fresh markets.

2) Milk Production Milk production in Thailand is dominated by small dairy farms which typically have five to ten milking cows. However, recently farms are getting larger, with about 20% of dairy farms now having more than 20 head, compared with 6% 10 years ago. Generally, dairy farming is characterized by low productivity and problems with infertility and/or mastitis with as many as 30% of the dairy cattle being affected. Poor feed quality is also a major problem, leading to low milk production and poor reproductive health (Quirke et at., 2003).

3) Poultry Production Most poultry production in Thailand now takes place in commercial operations with the industry being dominated by large multinational companies. By the mid-1990s, family farms accounted for less than 25% of total production due to the expansion of commercial poultry farms. Independent commercial growers often engage in contracts with small growers, however, the number of contract growers is likely to decline due to their inability to equal the economic advantage attainable by the large commercial growers (FAORAP, 2002a).

4) Pork Production Pork production has moved from a system dominated by small growers to larger scale commercial operations. Around 80% of the total pork production now takes place on large farms and at feed mill companies. In particular, the collapse in production in the wake of the financial crisis in 1998 had a large impact on small swine farms. Low prices and high costs of production forced many small farms out of operation. Much of the resurgent introduction has been generated by larger operations. Lack of credit has made re-establishing small farms a difficult task. Moreover, the introduction of European high lean live pigs contributed to higher costs due to the housing and feeding requirements, and this also favored large-scale production operators. Growing concern over diseases in recent times has led to a wider use of vaccines, which has further increased production costs; however, over half of the total production cost can be attributed to feed costs (Quirke et at., 2003).

(5) Marketing of Animals 1) Beef cattle Figure 2.2.1 shows the marketing channels of beef cattle in Thailand. Livestock markets are open weekly, and farmers who want to sell their livestock go to a nearby market in their area. Livestock prices are decided through negotiation between buyer and seller.

JICA 2-6 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Farmer

Middlemen Local Wholesale Market

Middlemen

Slaughterhouse

Market

consumers

Figure 2.2.1 Marketing Channel of Beef Cattle

2) Broiler Figure 2.2.2 shows the broiler marketing channels in Thailand. As shown in the figure, the broiler market is more commercialized and systemized compared to the system used to market cattle.

Figure 2.2.2 Marketing Channel of Broiler

2-7 DLD The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report (6) Animal Feeds and Feeding System 1) Feeding system The two feeding systems mainly used in Thailand are grazing with supplementary feed and the zero-grazing system.

• Grazing with supplementary feed: In this system the animals graze on natural or on improved pastures such as communal or private land. The animals’ diet is supplemented with fodder crops and/or with concentrates. • Zero-grazing: With this system the animals are confined to the feeding area and all the feed is brought to them with a cut-and-carry feeding system. This means that not only the supplementary feed but also the roughage, such as grass and hay, and drinking water has to be provided to the livestock.

2) Seasonal Feeding System Figure 2.2.3 shows the seasonal feeding system for livestock in Thailand. Rice straw is used all year round in conjunction with feeding forage crops such as Pangola grass. Grazing also takes place on harvested paddy fields and grazing grounds. However, farmers in general are not sufficiently aware of the important relationship between nutritional requirements and the quality of animal feed.

Seasonal Feeding System for Livestock

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Seasonality Dry Season Wet Season Dry Season Flood in 2011 Flooding 1st Paddy (Local Variety) Paddy cultivation 2nd Paddy (RD) 2nd Paddy (RD)

Feeding rice straw & wild grasses all year round Present Feeding rice straw & wild grasses) Feeding fresh grasses(Pangola grass etc) Rice straw & wild grasses)

Feeding hay/silage/rice straw Feeding fresh grasses(Pangola grass etc) Feeding hay/silage/rice straw Plan Silage & Hay Production for Storing

Chainat (℃) Ayutthaya (mm) (mm) 60.0 300 60 300 Rainfall(mm) Rainfall(mm) Temperature(℃)Max ℃ Temperature(℃)Max 50.0 Temperature( )Min 250 50 250 Temperature(℃)Mean Temperature(℃)Min Temperature(℃)Mean 40.0 200 40 200

30 150 30.0 150 20 100 20.0 100 10.0 50 10 50

0 0 0.0 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Figure 2.2.3 Seasonal Feeding System for Livestock in Thailan

2.3. Organization of the Department of Livestock Development (DLD)

2.3.1. DLD Central Administration and Mandate

(1) Organization structure The administration of the DLD is divided into two parts; central and provincial administrations. The central administration, located in Bangkok, is composed of three divisions, 15 bureau offices, including the Office of the Department Secretary, the National Institute of Animal Health,

JICA 2-8 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report the Information Technology Centre, the Internal Auditing Unit, and t h e Administrative Development Unit. The organizational structure of the DLD is illustrated below in Figure 2.3.1.

MOAC

DLD B.: Bureau D.: Division Central Administration

Internal aditing unit Public Sector Development

Office of Dept. Personal D. Finance D. D. of Planning Secretary

B. of Legal affairs B. of Animal B. of Animal Nutrition Information tech. Husbandry center

National Institute Disease Control and B. of Livestock Standard B. of Biotechnology in Animal Health Vet. Service and Certification Livestock Production

B. of Veterinary B. of Livestock B. of Quality Control of B. of Animal Regional Biologics Development and Livestock Product 1-9 tech. transfer

Regional Administration

Office of Livestock Province

Office of Livestock District

Figure 2.3.1 Organizational Structure of DLD

(2) Mandate of Units The mandates of the department units and their duties and responsibilities are summarized in Appendix I-B-2.

2.3.2. DLD Administration (Provincial and District)

The provincial administration comprises Provincial Livestock offices (PLOs) consisting of 887 units at district level, working with 7,409 Sub-District Agricultural Technology Transfer Centers nationwide. At the village level there are 80,000 Voluntary Livestock Workers who are responsible for carrying out the DLD’s work. The organization chart of the Office of Livestock as it operates in provincial areas is shown in Figure 2.3.2.

2-9 DLD The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Office of Livestock

Administration and Livestock Standard and Animal Health Technical Transfer Planning Certificate

- policy and planning - administration - finance

Office of Livestock District

Thailand Provincial Livestock Offices (PLOs)

◎ 77 Provinces There are 1,813 DLD persons working in 887

◎ 9 Livestock Administrative Regions District Livestock Offices for ◎ ◎ 5 Poultry Zones 77 Changwat ◎ 928 Amphoe ◎ 7,409 Tambon ◎ 72,944 villages ◎ About 80,000voluntary livestock workers responsible for DLD jobs at the Village Level

Figure 2.3.2 Organization Chart of the Office of Livestock

2.3.3. Animal Nutrition Division (Forage Seed Center)

The Animal Nutrition Research and Development Center is a government organization under the DLD, providing good quality seeds for forage, providing advice and services on pasture establishment and utilization, forage storing and animal feeding. The organizational chart of the Animal Nutrition Division is shown in Figure 2.3.3.

Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative

Department of Livestock Developmant

Division of Animal Nutrition

General Chainat ANRDC Nakonratchasima ANRDC KhonkaenANRDC Phetchaburi ANRDC

Suphanburi ANDS Roi-et ANDS Mahasarakham ANDS Prachuap Khrikhan ANDS Forage and Feed Management Phetchaboon ANDS Buriram ANDC Kalasin ANDS Suratthani ANRDC Forage and Feed Technology

Forage Research Group Sukhothai ANDS Yasothon ANDC Udonthani ANDS Chumpon ANDS Figure 2.3.3 Organizational Chart of the Animal Nutrition Division Animal Nutrition Phichit ANDS Loei ANDS Narathiwat ANRDC

Forage and Feed Sakaeo ANRDC Lampang ANRDC Mukdahan ANDS Satun ANDS Phrae ANDS Nongkai ANDS Trang ANDS Nakonphanom ANDS Phatthalung ANDC

Sakonnakorn ANDS

Figure 2.3.3 Organizational Chart of the Animal Nutrition Division

JICA 2-10 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report 2.4. Flood Damages to Livestock in 2011

2.4.1. Estimated Amount of Damage to Livestock

According to the DLD, a total of 29 million livestock including cattle and poultry were lost as well as pasture areas of 14,370 rai (2,299 ha), with 220,221 livestock farmers affected. The losses are estimated at 6,483 million baht, based on the unit prices for compensation.

Table 2.4.1 below shows the number and percentage of livestock lost out of the total livestock population prior to the flood. The table also shows that not only cattle, but also a high percentage of poultry (chicken, duck) and goats were lost.

Table 2.4.1 Number and Percentage of the Damage on Livestock by Breed

% to the Livestock Number No. of livestock lost Remark total Buffalo 1,234,179 35,629 2.9 Cattle 6,583,106 319,361 4.9 6,821,675 2.2 Native Chicken 316,536,364 14,248,675 4.5 Egg & Meal Duck 32,179,227 4,678,616 14.5 Goat 427,567 29,272 6.8 Sheep 51,735 1,826 3.5 Swine 9,681,774 296,880 3.1 Source: Impact from Disaster Report (DLD)

2.4.2. Damage on the Livestock Sector by Province

The tables below present the summary of damage of livestock by province.

 Cows The province with the highest number of cows lost was Suphanburi, in the central plain, accounting for 9.9% of the total, followed by Chaiyaphum, and Ayutthaya.

Table 2.4.2 Top 4 Provinces of Damage to Cows

No. lost (heads) Rank Province 1 Suphanburi 31,611 (9.9%) Cow 2 Chaiyaphum 24,852 (7.8%)

3 Ayutthaya 21,952 (6.9%) 4 Roi Et 19,111 (6.0%)

Source: Impact from the Disaster Report (DLD)

 Swine For swine, Suphanburi was the province with most serious damage, accounting for 14.4 % of the total, followed by Ayutthaya, and Sukhothai. All these provinces are located mainly in the central plain.

Table 2.4.3 Top 4 Provinces of Damage to Swine

Rank Province No. lost (heads) 1 Suphanburi 42,796 (14.4%) Swine 2 Ayutthaya 29,976 (10.1%) 3 Sukhothai 29,499 (9.9%) 4 Nakhon Prathom 29,083 (9.8%) Source: Impact from the Disaster Report (DLD)

2-11 DLD The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

 Egg and Meat Chicken With respect to chickens for egg and meat production, Ayutthaya recorded the heaviest damage with 34.1% of the total, followed by Nakhon Prathom and Suphanburi in third place.

Table 2.4.4 Top 4 Provinces of Damage to Chickens

Rank Province No. lost (Bird) Egg 1 Ayutthaya 4,863,469 (34.1%) & 2 Nakhon Prathom 3,051,987 (21.4%) Meat 3 Suphanburi 2,815,652 (19.8%) Chicken 4 Nakhon Sawan 1,306,081 (9.2%) Source: DLD

2.4.3. Magnitude of the Flood Damage on Pastures

According to the DLD data dated 30 November, 2011, shows 14,370 rai (2,299 ha) of pasture land, cultivating mainly Pangola grass, suffered damage from the flood. This damage was sustained mainly in the provinces located in the central plain such as Suphanburi and Chaiyaphum, but including Tak in the Northern Region. However, the duration of the flooding period and water depth differed considerably between the provinces, because of the geographical characteristics of the land. Accordingly, the level of pasture damage differs significantly between the provinces.

JICA 2-12

P The

r

Table 2.4.5 Damage to the Livestock Sector by Province oject

Number Number of Animals Lost Immediate Assistance f

of or Flood Duration Egg Pasture Mineral No. Province District Tambon Moo Farmers Type Native Forage Animal of disaster Cow Buffalo Swine Goat Sheep Duck & meat Quail Goose Total grass field & being chicken crop (kg) health care chicken (rai) Pharmaceutical damaged 1 Bangkok 31 121 1,103 4,935 All flood 5,967 200 90 3,933 264 10,398 94,264 104 - 79 115,299 511 18,000 60 - 2 Chainat 6 32 162 4,865 All flood 4,984 187 3,746 2,349 30 106,417 138,014 191,365 - 52 447,144 20 25,000 146,141 2,360 3 Patumthani 7 60 529 6,029 All flood 8,760 989 4,600 1,987 35 210,000 135,000 126,948 45,000 - 533,319 - 9,480 - - C 4 Nontaburi 6 52 328 5,750 All flood 3,100 240 550 2,700 71 35,000 42,500 8,800 5,000 190 98,151 - 10,000 347 - ounte 5 Ayutthaya 16 181 1,269 18,590 All flood 21,952 1,680 29,976 3,380 248 682,280 517,0274,863,469 1,216,213 29,588 7,365,813 72 222,480 13,054 1,000 6 Lopburi 7 63 477 12,369 All flood 17,211 1,442 21,800 859 184 764,870 369,637995,341 13,000 - 2,184,344 716 70,100 152,841 - r

7 Singburi 6 33 169 3,206 All flood 4,106 63 12,689 421 - 92,865 68,671214,824 250,000 291 643,930 66 101,880 33,126 - mea 8 Saraburi 12 40 240 2,377 All flood 2,784 131 789 297 - 41,430 88,858 52 40 10 134,391 19.5 15,020 28,146 - 9 Suphan Buri 9 96 903 15,493 All flood 31,611 392 42,796 4,349 - 393,878 632,459 2,815,652 611,080 - 4,532,217 3,058.00 30,000 - - s

10 Angthong 7 64 397 7,518 All flood 11,525 298 17,357 978 30 608,114 776,951 542,600 742,800 421 2,701,074 765.5 1,059,500 502,793 30 u

Chanthaburi 2 2 - 13 All flood - - 5 - - 20 100 - - 10 135 - 10,000 - - r

11 e

12 Chacherngsao 6 21 156 1,534 All flood 9,418 75 2 759 110 - 1,478 - - - 11,842 - 265,400 844 240 s

f

13 Trad 2 5 43 1,157 All flood 1,123 494 800 189 - - 10,405 - - - 13,011 - 10,000 - - o r

14 Nakorn Nayok 4 14 32 104 All flood 1,112 528 35 - - 1,547 80 36,700 - 17 40,019 - 50,600 99 12 Thailand 15 Prachinburi 6 30 116 1,893 All flood 6,472 1,906 11,174 - - 677 18,766 - - - 38,995 - 31,000 592 156 16 Chaiyaphum 11 48 379 12,764 All flood 24,852 1,440 12,335 - - 61,594 286,445 3,000 - - 389,666 2,500.00 27,320 41,294 - 17 Burirum 4 9 24 708 All flood 1,512 903 ------2,415 - 20,000 - - 18 Roi-et 9 30 185 7,171 All flood 19,111 3,103 2,135 - - 43,228 145,283- - 38 212,898 22 434,020 69,620 79

19 Yasothorn 5 14 47 1,627 All flood 3,296 752 88 - - 124 525 - - - 4,785 - 233,160 2,272 984 A

20 Srisakhet 5 14 46 1,476 All flood 4,331 1,756 ------6,087 - 100,000 - - gricultu

2-13 21 Surin 3 5 40 2,233 All flood 7,949 1,239 1,625 ------10,813 - 65,200 - - 22 Ubonratchatani 10 23 125 6,126 All flood 10,418 4,641 2,166 - 52 17,841 118,416 55 - 38 153,627 190 111,000 12,807 - 23 Amnardcharoen 1 2 2 84 All flood 189 58 5 ------252 - 16,800 - -

24 Kalasin 9 16 48 1,144 All flood 4,066 991 266 - - 1,864 13,761 - - - 20,948 - 160,000 - 1,000 r 25 Khon Kaen 13 28 156 4,686 All flood 10,155 1,802 5,608 2,206 - 72,818 347,577 - - - 440,166 - 69,840 429 - Secto al 26 Mukdahan 1 1 1 229 All flood 350 110 - - - - 4,607 - - - 5,067 - 87,000 - - 27 Mahasarakham 3 14 55 528 All flood 1,726 65 ------1,791 95 186,450 88 - 28 Nong Khai 5 12 44 1,499 All flood 1,253 534 7,107 - - 6,044 15,335 7,960 - - 38,233 503 73,800 511 - r 29 Nongbua Lamphu 3 14 79 1,015 All flood 5,546 1,309 240 - - 3,621 12,114 - - - 22,830 - 25,910 64 678 30 Bungkan 4 8 36 545 All flood 488 400 277 16 - 2,502 7,446 - - - 11,129 2 27,860 1,969 - 31 Loei 6 26 157 6,880 All flood 8,489 - 1,517 157 - - 280,364 - - 290,527 270 362,106 - 2,220 32 Udonthani 5 9 38 461 All flood 922 642 - - - 1,954 11,752 - - - 15,270 - 1,600 - - 33 Chiengrai 6 10 31 791 All flood 166 - 9 - - 33 16,834 - - - 17,042 - 31,820 6 200 34 Chiengmai 6 21 66 2,556 All flood 11,524 414 3,609 82 - 3,752 858,342 77,563 - 16 955,302 60 15,600 75,000 - 35 Nan 1 3 9 414 All flood - - 34 - - 2,154 11,655 - - - 13,843 - - 190 - 36 Payao 1 2 3 63 All flood ------712 - - - 712 - 56,500 - - 37 Phrae 8 39 219 3,055 All flood 5,279 459 3,790 - - 1,253 98,404 - - - 109,185 - - 2,729 - 38 Maehonson 2 3 7 50 All flood 1 7 50 - - 244 1,803 - - - 2,105 - 23,000 - - 39 Lampang 9 27 83 3,578 All flood 4 2 95 - - 624 28,624 - - 6 29,355 - 15,000 - - 40 Lampoon 2 4 21 234 All flood 500 - 301 - - 71 11,274 2,700 8,000 - 22,846 - 10,000 5,500 - 41 Kampaengphet 6 11 60 1,633 All flood 3,497 278 5,562 - - 17,737 141,157 - - - 168,231 - 2,000 27 - 42 Tak 2 3 17 1,088 All flood 6,284 38 1,278 - - - 100,914- - - 108,514 2,883.00 84,080 - - 43 Nakornsawan 15 123 1,270 18,509 All flood 12,259 1,331 27,193 761 325 611,275 194,321 1,306,081 - 52 2,153,598 - 81,000 55,241 - 44 Pichit 11 74 565 11,166 All flood 4,192 525 7,614 323 - 398,105 368,389 2,260 - 108 781,516 225 136,000 780,958 2,907 45 Pitsanulok 7 29 111 1,811 All flood 2,177 79 3,698 76 - 1,031 54,123 - - - 61,184 249 316,000 28,238 2,376 46 Petchaboon 4 21 82 3,708 All flood 1,725 94 2,866 - - 3,634 94,204 - - - 102,523 - 157,220 330 32 47 Sukhothai 5 48 426 19,881 All flood 13,215 1,060 29,499 255 - 232,211 471,935 - - - 748,175 - 29,000 711 - 48 Utharadit 3 9 24 348 All flood 438 94 41 - - 110 6,847 - - - 7,530 - 30,000 1,650 250 49 Uthaithani 5 18 81 2,160 All flood 1,471 2,633 1,388 100 100 57,997 88,289 5 54,015 14 206,012 25 17,000 25,469 1,329 50 NaKkhon Phanom 7 88 600 6,486 All flood 10,340 236 29,083 1,075 373 172,399 76,148 3,051,987 - 20 3,341,661 - 7,000 23,529 - Final Repor Final 51 Rajburi 1 3 17 271 All flood 940 ------940 1,777.00 - - - 52 Samutprakan 1 1 1 1 All flood - - - - - 7,000 - - - - 7,000 - - - -

DLD 53 Pang-nga 2 5 22 106 All flood 100 - 40 55 - 470 1,680 - - - 2,345 - - 16 - 54 Suratthani 1 2 10 675 All flood 277 4 952 - - 858 7,106 - - - 9,197 - 212,250 - - 55 Satoon 4 18 55 6,628 All flood 10,194 5 - 1,965 4 8,572 51,0791,209 - - 73,028 341 212,250 - - Total 333 1,649 11,166 220,221 - - 319,361 35,629 296,880 29,272 1,826 4,678,616 6,821,67514,248,675 2,945,148 30,950 29,408,032 14,370.00 5,366,246 2,006,691 15,853

t

Final Report 2.5. Monitoring Survey on Distribution of Fertilizers and Seeds/Seedlings

2.5.1. Distribution System

On December 27, 2011, it was decided that a total of 1,200 tons of fertilizers, as well as seeds and seedlings would be distributed. And on March 18, 2012, the DLD Bangkok Headquarters (HQ) informed 29 centers and stations to conduct a survey of flood damage to livestock and pastures in each province. The hand-over ceremony was held on March 27, 2012, at the Chainat Animal Nutrition Research and Development Center under the DLD. On March 28, a kick-off meeting was held and it was agreed that the number of target provinces would be increased from 26 to 49. Each center and station then held a meeting with all staff where the director instructed them to conduct a full assessment of flood damage and its effects on livestock farmers and pastures. A meeting at DLD HQ was held on April 2 with the directors of centers and stations to plan the distribution of fertilizers, seeds and seedlings.

Some farmers became aware that JICA and DLD would distribute fertilizers, seeds and seedlings through reports on TV and other media, while others were informed by the staff of DLD centers and stations. Farmers who had suffered from the flood, registered for assistance with the DLD by filling out the designated Format-1 forms. Each center and station forwarded the designated Format-2 to DLD HQ in Bangkok, and finally, the Bureau of Animal Nutrition of DLD organized a Project Steering Committee meeting to decide which livestock farmers would receive the benefits.

The fertilizers stored in the Chainat Center were distributed to the 29 centers and stations from the beginning of May to early July (refer to Figure 2.5.1). Beneficiary livestock farmers received fertilizers, seeds and seedlings according to this system.

JICA 2-14 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Distribution of 1,000ton 15- 15-15 & 200

ton Urea, & Dec27, 20ton seeds 2011 Some farmers and 120 ton know the seedlings was distribution of decided fertilizers Inform to 29 Mar.18,20 through TV center/station 12 to survey Hand-over Mar.27, For paddy The Bureau of ceremony 2012 pasture, center Each center/station Animal Nutrition Kick-off Mar.28, Directors of each staff surveys Livestock farmers takes all information of DLD in meeting 2012 center/station set and reports suffered from flood from Form 1, and then Bangkok selects meeting inviting all number of Meeting in regist to hands over the Form-2 and conclude staff, especially farmers who DLD HQ on center/station for to Bureau of Animal beneficial extension staff in lost livestock arrange the registration Nutrition Development livestock farmers each center/station and paddy plan of Apr.2, of DLD HQ in Bangkok in the Steering to instruct to survey pasture, and for distribution 2012 Committee affected livestock small farm inviting farmers pasture, Center/station Amphoe DLD Form -1 Form -2 No. of beneficial directors staff surveyed farmers was adjusted in the Steering Paddy Pasture Committee in All farmers Center/station staff considering the affected flood surveyed and volume of fertilizers damage can be reported (15-15-15:1,000ton a candidate Small Farm Pasture + Urea:200ton) and Individual farmers number of applied to District candidates. DLD, and then registration was handed over to Provincial DLD

1. 15-15-5: 1,000ton/20,000 Distribution of Beneficial farmers use rai=50kg/rai Distribution of fertilizers fertilizers and fertilizers and 2. Urea: and Seeds/seedlings Seeds/seedlings from seeds/seedlings on farm 200 ton/20,000rai= from 29 Center/Station Chainat Center to 29 10kg/rai to beneficial farmers and Center/Station 3. Seeds 20ton Farmers sign on receipt 4. Seedlings 120ton (Form-3) When distributing, hand- over ceremony by Changwat administration MONITORING was conducted Form -3 (June25 to 29) Figure 2.5.1 Distribution System of Fertilizer and Seeds/Seedlings

The DLD surveyed and decided on the beneficiary areas and livestock farmers using six formats listed below, and included in Appendix I-B-3.

Form-1 Register of flood-affected farmers and pastures Form-2 Summary of farmer household information Form-3 Receipt for fertilizer Form-4 Schedule of fertilizer delivery Form-5 Hand-over of fertilizer, seed and seedlings Form-6 Detailed distribution report from each center/station

2.5.2. Volume of Fertilizers and Seeds/Seedlings Distributed

Under the original plan of the project, 1,000 tons of compound fertilizer (15-15-15) and 200 tons of urea were distributed to revive 20,000 rai (3,200 ha) of damaged pastures. These areas included; 1) paddy pasture, 2) small farm pasture, 3) communal land, and 4) pastures under DLD centers and stations. Table 2.5.1 shows DLD’s distribution plan dated April 2nd and the findings of the monitoring survey. D L D centers and stations were allocated 29.8% of the fertilizer because pastures belonging to the centers and stations were also damaged by the 2011 flood. The monitoring survey found that fertilizers had been distributed largely in accordance with the original plan.

2-15 DLD The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Table 2.5.1 Comparison of Original Allocation Plan and Monitored Results

1. Paddy 2. Small 3. Pasture in 4. Public Total pasture project farm pasture center/station pasture Compound fertilizer 15-15-15 (kg) 367,300 298,800 299,050 34,900 1,000,050 Urea 46-0-0 (kg) 70,800 59,760 59,800 6,980 197,340 Total 438,100 358,560 358,850 41,880 1,197,390 Share based on the Monitoring Result (%) 36.6 29.9 30 3.5 100 Share in the Original Distribution Plan (%) 36.9 29.1 29.8 4.2 100 To cover 20,000 rai (3,200 ha), 1,000 tons of compound fertilizer and 200 tons of urea were distributed. This is equivalent to 50 kg (1 bag) per rai and 10 kg per rai, respectively, which meet the standard requirement of fertilizer per rai for Pangola grass.

2.5.3. Number of Beneficiaries

In DLD HQ’s original plan, the number of livestock farmers to benefit from the distribution was 3,826, which are composed of four categories as shown in Table 2.5.2 below. The result of the monitoring survey showed that the number of beneficiaries increased from 3,826 to 3,911. A significant increase is seen in the category of communal land which increased from 10 to 139, especially in Yasothon Province where the number increased from zero to 130, and similarly in the pastures under DLD centers and stations where it increased from zero to 28.

Table 2.5.2 Number of Beneficiaries of Fertilizers (unit: No. of beneficiaries)

Small Paddy Pastures in Communal Item farm Total pasture Center/Station land pasture Original plan* 1,007 2,809 0 10 3,826 Result of the Plan 1,082 2,756 28 10 3,876 Monitoring** Result 1,237 2,507 28 139 3,911 Source: * DLD HQ, ** Result of the Monitoring Survey by JICA Survey Team

2.5.4. Beneficiary Areas

The beneficiary provinces were increased from the original number of 26 to 49, as decided at the kick-off meeting on March 28, 2012. As shown in Table 2.5.3, the original target of 20,000 rai (3,200 ha) increased slightly to 20,696 rai in the actual distribution. The distribution of fertilizers was completed successfully in line with the original plan both with respect to the area coverage and the number of beneficiaries.

Table 2.5.3 Beneficiary Areas Paddy Small farm Pastures in Communal Item Total pasture pasture Center/Station land Original plan* 7,384 5,818 5,964 834 20,000 Result of the Plan 7,075 5,976 6,048 698 19,797 Monitoring** Result 7,100 6,679 6,048 870 20,696

Source: *DLD HQ, **Result of the Monitoring Survey by JICA Survey Team

JICA 2-16 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

2.5.5. Distribution of Seeds and Seedlings

Seeds and seedlings provided from the DLD were also distributed to affected livestock farmers. DLD HQ’s original plan was to distribute 20 tons of forage seeds and 1,200 tons of seedlings. For seeds, the varieties of Ruzie, Atratum, Plicatulum, Cavacade, Bombaza and Purple Guinea were distributed depending on the relevant conditions of the provinces. For seedlings, Pangola grass and Pakchong -1 were provided.

The results of the monitoring survey on seeds and seedlings are summarized in Tables 2.5.4 and 2.5.5. Forage seeds of six species totaled more than 20,000 kg (20 tons), with Ruzie grass seeds being the main variety provided and accounting for 53% of the total.

Table 2.5.4 Distribution of Seeds (unit: kg)

Purple Seed variety Ruzie Atratum Plicatulum Cavacade Bombaza Total Guinea Original plan* 20,000 kg (20tons) 20,000 Result of the Plan 13,960 6,795 3,887 873 546 50 26,111 Monitoring** Result 13,734 6,589 3,907 883 546 50 25,709 Source: *DLD HQ **Result of the Monitoring Survey by JICA Survey Team

As well as seeds, forage seedlings of Pangola grass and Pakchong-1 were distributed to revive affected pastures. Compared with the original plan of 120,000 kg, the actual distribution of seedlings was increased to 253,700 kg though it is less than the planned 1,201,350 kg.

Table 2.5.5 Distribution of Seedlings (unit.kg) Item Pangola Pakchong-1 Total Original plan* 120,000 (120 ton) 120,000 Result of the Plan 129,300 1,072,050 1,201,350 Monitoring** Result 94,900 158,800 253,700

Source * DLD HQ **Result of the Monitoring Survey by JICA Survey Team All the monitoring results are shown on Appendix I, B-4.

2.6. Results of the Monitoring of Beneficial Livestock Farmers

(1) Fertilizers Distributed through the Project Number of the sample farmers was planned more than 10% against 3,826 beneficial farmers in total decided by DLD. In order to select beneficial farmers, Chainat and Supanburi provinces were duly taking consideration where were the biggest flood damage areas located in central Chao Phraya plain. As for other provinces, at least 5 farmers were selected even though there were few flood damaged livestock farmers.Out of the sampled 515 beneficial farmers, 488 responses are considered to be usable, and all of them received fertilizers. 462 beneficiaries, equivalent to 94.7%, received fertilizers from May 1st 2012, to July 2nd 2012.

2-17 DLD The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report Q1: Were you provided chemical fertilizers under the Project?

Responses No. of FHH* % Yes 488 100.0 No 0 0.0 Note.* FHH: Farm household

Q2: When did you get the fertilizer from JICA?

No. of FHH % Latest Earliest When 462 94.7 July 2nd, 2012 May 1, 2012 Not yet 26 5.3 - - To obtain the fertilizer 38.9 % of beneficial FHHs went directly to a center/station in their region to receive the fertilizer, 30.5%, of FHHs had the fertilizer transported and delivered to the farm by the center/station and a further 24.2% of FHHs went to a district or provincial DLD office.

Q3: How did you get the fertilizers?

No. of FHH % Went to the center/station 190 38.9 Center/station transported to their farms 149 30.5 Went to the district/provincial office of DLD 118 24.2 Other person went to take it 8 1.6 Others 0 0.0 No answer 23 4.7 Out of the 488 FHHs, 64.1% of them have already used and applied the provided fertilizer on their damaged pastures to assist with reproducing forage.

Q4: Have you already used fertilizers for the pasture?

Responses No. of FHH % Yes 313 64.1 No 155 31.8 No answer 20 4.1 As for the volume of fertilizers distributed to them, 56.6% of sample FHHs are satisfied with the quantity provided, but 36.1 % stated that the provided amount was “too small” and considered that it is was not adequate. Q5: What do you think about the volume of fertilizers?

Responses No. of FHH % Too much 1 0.2 Much 20 4.1 Enough 276 56.6 Small 144 29.5 Too small 32 6.6 No answer 15 3.1

The reasons given by the farmers for “small and too small” responses, is that 72.7% of sample FHHs feel that the pasture needs more nutrition, and 39.2% feel the pasture is very large.

JICA 2-18 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Q5: If you think the volume of fertilizers is small, why did you think so?

Responses No. of FHH % Flood damage was serious 50 28.4 Pasture is very large 69 39.2 Pasture needs more nutrition 128 72.7 Selection and distribution system is 5 2.8 not good Others 0 0.0

(2) Seed/seedlings Distributed through the Project As for distribution of seeds/seedlings, the result of the monitoring survey shows considerable difference with the results of the fertilizer distribution. The reasons are followings;  100% of sample farmers received the fertilizer but only 44.5% of farmers received the seed/seedlings in the time of monitoring  Good quality fertilizer was contributed to the recovery of pastures and reproduction of the feed crop because the livestock farmers were suffered by the shortage of feed during 2011 flood. On the contrary, needs of seed/seedlings distribution was very low because the livestock farmers had already planted the Pangola grass, etc.  For the above reason, 44.5% of farmers who received the seed/seedlings in the beginning of monitoring were planted the distributed seed/seedlings

More than half of the beneficial FHHs did not receive seeds/seedlings by early July in 2012.

Q6: Did you get the seeds/seedlings from the Project?

Responses No. of FHH % Yes 217 44.5 No 271 55.5

In the earlier case, beneficial FHHs had received the seeds and seedlings was on May 1st 2012, and the latest was on July 2nd 2012, which matches the distribution schedule of the fertilizers.

Q7: When did you get the seeds/seedlings?

No. of FHH % Latest Earliest When 211 97.2 July 2nd 2012 May 1st 2012 Not yet 6 2.8 - -

Regarding the varieties, Ruzie (Brachiaria Ruziziensis) seeds were the main ones distributed. For other varieties, only 6.6% of households received Pangola grass seedlings, 14.7% for Guinea grass, and 29.9% for Pakchong-1.

2-19 DLD The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report Q8: What kind of seeds/seedlings were you provided from the Project?

Responses No. of FHH % Guinea grass 31 14.7 Ruzie grass 138 65.4 Other seeds 96 45.5 Seedlings of Pakchong-1 63 29.9 Seedlings of Pangola grass 14 6.6 Other seedlings 3 1.4

Even when households had received the seeds or seedlings, 51.6% of them had not used them by early July 2012. Picture (right) is Pakchong-1 of a beneficiary FHH.

Q9: Have you already used the seeds/seedlings on your farm?

Responses No. of FHH % Yes 102 47.0 No 112 51.6

As for the quantity of seeds/seedlings, 71.9% of the FHHs answered favorably that it was “enough”. The reason for this response is that the demand for fertilizers was higher than that for seed/seedlings. This is because most of them were already cultivating Pangola grass and other forages before and after the flood in 2011.

Q10: What do you think about the quantity of seeds/seedlings distributed through the Project?

Responses No. of FHH % Too much 1 0.5 Much 8 3.7 Enough 156 71.9 Small 39 18.0 Too small 13 6.0 No answer 0 0.0

More than 71% of sampled FHHs had not received any supporting services for pasture reproduction from the government as shown below.

Q11: Have you ever received support for pasture reproduction?

Responses No. of FHH % Yes 112 23.0 No 347 71.1 No answer 29 5.9

About 50% of the farmers own some form of animal feed storage or barn, and more than 55% of them store only rice straw implying that they are greatly dependent on rice straw which has lower nutritional value than Pangola grass and Pakchong-1.

JICA 2-20 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Q12: Do you have a storing space or barn for forage?

Responses No. of FHH % Yes 240 47.1 No 248 50.8 Q13: What kind of animal feed do you store?

Responses No. of FHH % Yes, rice straw 270 55.3 Yes, hay 85 17.4 Yes, silage 36 7.4 Yes, others 13 2.7 No 126 25.8

In the 2011 flood, the damage to farmers was twofold; 1) loss of livestock, and 2) damage or destruction of pastures. Out of 488 sampled FHHs, 229 FHHs, or 47%, lost livestock. The highest loss was to beef cattle, followed by chickens.

For pastures, 23.6% of pastures were destroyed completely, and 11.7% reported having no damage. This implies that flood damage to pasture lands differed considerably depending on land conditions. About 60% of affected FHHs replanted or reseeded their pasture after flooding to enable reproduction.

Q14: Number of livestock lost in the 2011 flood

No. of FHH lost livestock No. of Livestock Lost Livestock No. % Max. Min. Buffaloes 3 0.6 6 4 Dairy cows 20 4.1 30 1 Beef cattle 117 24.0 60 1 Swine 6 1.2 28 2 Goats 12 2.5 20 1 Sheep 1 0.2 2 2 Ducks 17 3.5 200 1 Chickens 53 10.9 1,000 2

Q15: Water depth and period of flooding in the 2011 flood

No. of FHH % Max. Min. Average Days of flooding 461 94.5 180 days 1 day 32.2 days No answer 27 5.5 - - - Water level(cm) 461 94.5 70 cm 0.02 cm 2.3 cm No answer 27 5.5 - - -

2-21 DLD The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report Q16: How was the pasture damaged by the 2011 flood?

No. of FHH % 100% 115 23.6 80 to 90% 35 7.2 70 to 80% 35 7.2 60 to 70% 28 5.7 50 to 60% 94 19.3 Less than 50% 119 24.4 No damage 57 11.7 No answer 5 1.0

Q17: Did you replant/reseed the damaged pasture after the flood in 2011?

No. of FHH % Yes 281 57.6 No 195 40.0 No answer 12 2.5 The following tables show the current status of pastures they are cultivating.

Q18: How many rai of pasture do you have?

No. of FHH % Max. Min. Ave. 488 100 800 rai 0.5 rai 11.2 rai

Q19: What kind of forage are you cultivating?

Varieties No. of FHH % Pangola grass 302 61.9 Pakchong-1 111 22.7 Ruzie grass 73 15.0 Guinea grass 69 14.1 Atratum grass 29 5.9 Whip grass 12 2.5 Para grass 6 1.2 Others 36 7.4

Q20: Where do you cultivate forage?

No. of FHH % Paddy field 328 67.2 Upland 210 43.0 Others 11 2.3

Q21: Height of cutting

No. of FHH % Highest Lowest Average Pakching-1 115 23.6 30 cm 0.02 cm 4.4 cm Pangola grass 300 61.5 15 cm 0.5 cm 3.3 cm

JICA 2-22 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

(3) Monitoring Method and Schedule 1) Survey Method The surveyors were required to collect every item according to the Formats prepared by the Project Team through interviews with beneficiaries at a designated place and date. As well as farmers, centers and stations under DLD were also surveyed to confirm information such as the status on the arrival date of fertilizers from Chainat Center and the volumes received. A one-day training session was held at DLD HQ to train surveyors who were invited from 29 centers and stations.

2) Number of Sample Farmers In total, 515 beneficiary farmers were surveyed using Format-1. Provinces under the control of Chainat and Suphanburi Centers made up 220 samples, or 41% of the total. Out of the 515 samples, 488 were valid responses and considered usable. The number of farmers surveyed by province is shown in Appendix I-B-5, and the questionnaire used is in Appendixes I-B-6 and I-B-7.

3) 29 Centers and stations All the eight centers and 21 stations under the DLD in Table 2.6.1 below were surveyed using Format-2 attached as Appendix I-B-3.

Table 2.6.1 Centers and Stations under the DLD

DLD’s Centers and Stations 1. Chainat 10.1Kalasin 19. Lampang 28. Phichit 2. Suphanburi 11.1Udonthani 20. Phrae 29. Sukhothai 3. Sakaeo 12. Loei 21. Suratthani 4. Nakhon Ratchasima 13. Mukdahan 22. Chumphon 5. Roi Et 14. Nongkhai 23. Narathiwat 6. Buriram 15. Sakon Nakhon 24. Satun 7. Yasothon 16. Nakhon Phanom 25. Tran 8. Khon Kaen 17. Phetchaburi 26. Phatthalung 9. Mahasarakham 18. Prachuapkhirikhan 27. Phetchabun

4) Work Schedule The monitoring survey at field level commenced on June 26 and ended on June 29, 2012. All the questionnaires were mailed to DLD HQ, and the analysis was completed by late July 2012.

2.7. Training

(1) Training Modules and Schedule The project organized training for farmers engaged in pasture production and animal breeding. The training was conducted over three days and the topics covered were: pasture development and fodder for ruminant production; animal selection, and management of beef cattle for small farm holders; pasture establishment and management; intensive pasture production, paddy pasture production, backyard pasture production; hay and silage making; practice on pasture establishment and its management and utilization; animal health care during flood and drought situation; and disease prevention, countermeasures and disaster risk management. All of the lecturers consisted of local staff, includingofficers from DLD HQ in Bangkok, officers from each animal nutrition center or station, and officers from provincial DLDs. The training was conducted in eight sites in different provinces as shown below. Approximately 40 livestock farmers participated at each site.

2-23 DLD The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

1. Khon Kaen Province, Northeastern Region: May 10 to May 12 2. Mahasarakham Province, Northeastern Region : May 10 to May 12 3. Chainat Province, Central Region : May 14 to May 16 4. Suphanburi Province, Central Region : May 21 to May 23 5. Nakhon Si Thammarat Province, Southern Region : June 5 to June 7 6. Sakaeo Province, Central Region : June 11 to June 13 7. Lampang Province, Northern Region: June 13 to June 15 8. Phitsanulok Province, Central Region : June 16 to June 18

Training in Sakaeo Province Training in Phitsanulok Province

1) Information collected from the participants During the 3-day training session, information was collected from participants in order to understand the nature of the damage caused by the 2011 flood to their farms, as well as general information about livestock raising and management. The information compiled from all sites is summarized in Table 2.7.1 and that of each site is in Appendix I-B-8.

Table 2.7.1 Information about the training participants

All training No. of participants 291 No. and % of farmers raising milk cow No.= 45 %= 15.5% No. and % of farmers raising beef cattle No.= 177 %= 60.8% No. and % of farmers raising buffalo No.= 4 %= 1.4% No. and % of farmers raising pigs No.= 9 %= 3.1% No. and % of farmers raising goats No.= 7 %= 2.4% No. and % of farmers raising sheep No.= 0 %= 0.0% No. and % of farmers owning pasture No.= 266 %= 91.4% Maximum and average pasture size in rai Max= 100.0 Ave= 10.2 No. and % of farmers damaged pasture No.= 214 %= 73.5% % of damaged pasture %= 61.5% - Flooding period (days) Max= 120.0 Ave= 28.3 Water depth of the flood in 2011 (m) Max= 4.0 Ave= 0.6 No. and % of farmers cultivating Pangola grass No.= 151 %= 51.9%

Out of all participants, 91.4% were planting pasture, 60.8% were raising beef cattle, and 15.5% were raising milking cows. Furthermore, 73.5% of the participants reported damage on their pastures in the 2011 flood. On average, 61.5% of the participants’ pasture lands were damaged. The maximum flooding period was 120 days and the maximum water depth was 4.0m.

JICA 2-24 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

(2) Group Discussion on Countermeasures During the training session, group discussions were conducted to understand the problems of pasture management and animal raising during the 2011 flood, and participants discussed flood countermeasures based on their lessons learned in the previous year. The result of the group discussions in eight sites are shown in Appendix I-B-9. The major problem with animal raising was the lack of feed. The countermeasure for it was to keep feed, such as hay and silage, in storage. Another problem was that they did not have shelter for livestock on ground higher than flood water levels. The countermeasure for it was to look for higher ground, to where animals could be moved. Some groups mentioned that they needed governmental support for constructing shelters. The major problem for pastures was that soil and crops were damaged or destroyed completely during the flood. The countermeasures for this were to stock forage seeds and fertilizers, and to have available pumps to drain water from flooded pasture land. Farmers can also use forage varieties with a higher plant height than the flood level. In addition, some groups mentioned that the government should establish an early warning system for floods so that farmers can be prepared.

(3) Evaluation of the training by participants Halfway through the training sessions, participants evaluated various aspects of the training, such as the topics covered in the lectures, equipment, the presentations. All items were evaluated on a five point scale from excellent to very poor. The results are shown in Figure 2.7.1. The participants mostly gave high ratings, which appear consistent between all four sites where the evaluations were conducted.

Key: The area rated and the corresponding number on the graph. 1. Overall content and quality of the training material 2. Overall content of the presentations 3. Overall explanation by the lecturers 4. Content and quality of the module “Pasture development and fodder needs for ruminant production in Thailand” 5. Content and quality of the module “Breeding, selection, and management of beef cattle for small farm holders”

2-25 DLD The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report 6. Content and quality of the module “Pasture establishment and management” 7. Content and quality of the module “Intensive pasture production, paddy pasture production, backyard pasture production, fodder preservation, hay making and silage making” 8. Content and quality of the module “Practice on pasture establishment, management and utilization ” 9. Content and quality of the module “Animal health and health care during flood and drought situations ” 10. Content and quality of the module “Prevention, countermeasures and disaster risk management”

Figure 2.7.1 Results of Evaluation at four Training Sites

As shown in Appendix I-B-10, most of participants mentioned that this kind of training is required at least once a year and if possible more often. Another important point raised by the farmers was that they needed much more urea than compound fertilizer.

2.8. Recommendations

(1) Strengthening Forage Production and Storing at Community Level It was confirmed through the monitoring survey conducted in 2012 in the Component-1 that the most serious issue on livestock sub-sector during and after the flooding in 2011 was shortage in animal feed. Any kind of livestock need to have feed every day to maintain their body and to produce animal products such as meat and milk.

As to forage production, it will be necessary to promote cultivation of Pangola grass and Pakchong-1 (Giant Napier grass) containing higher nutrition values in order to cope with likely flood disaster. DLD recommends Pangola grass for low land and Pakchong-1 for upland respectively increase livestock productivity and to secure feed storing. It is known that the profitability of Pangola grass per rai (1,600m2) is higher than that of paddy, and farmers also recognize this. Pangola grass is able to increase its yield by proper fertilizing (basal and top dressing), cutting and irrigation (much better if a water source is available) and surplus production can be sold by THB 100 per bale because of high demand for it for cattle, horses, rabbits and elephants etc. For Pakchong-1, silage can be sold at THB 54 per 20 kg bag. Taking into consideration the probability of future flooding, it is recommended to make hay bales and silage to store before the flood occurs.

(2) The Role of ANRDCs under DLD DLD's Feed Supply Center/station In the 2011 flood disaster, ANRDCs (so called

DLD center) deployed in 29 provinces in the Hay & Silage Production & Storing country supported livestock farmers by Community/Province/Region distributing stored hay bales in their storages. Considering the number of livestock, magnitude DLD's Livestock Farmers Center Feed Supply of flooding areas and also flooding period, huge /statio n Feed Supply DLD's amount of forage has to be stored not only in Feed Supply Center/s tation ANRDC level but also in community and DLD's individual livestock farmers targeting mainly Flooded Areas Center/statio cattle and goats/sheep. Especially feed storing at a community level is considered to be weak DLD's Feed Supply because livestock farmers have not so serious Center/station flood damage as the 2011 flood in the past. Non-Flooded Areas

JICA 2-26 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Feed supply system in the time of emergency should consider at national level so that the non-flooded areas can support the flooded areas in supplying stored feed (refer to the Figure). According to the above mentioned concept, JICA’s Componenet-1 Team proposes strengthening feed production and storing in the DLD level, Community level and individual farmer level respectively, and implemented proposed pilot projects in the selected areas of Tambon Wang Man in Chainat province and Tambon Singhanat in Ayutthaya province. To be more precise, JICA Team provided livestock farmer in the two sites with 2-wheel mowers, grass choppers and constructed feed storages to strengthen feed production and storing as a model at community level. For the ANRDC (Animal Nutrition and Research Development Center) under DLD in Chainat, JICA Team provided two local-made balers and constructed two silage storages at the Sub-Center under ANRDC as a model at DLD level.

(3) Planning Feed Storing 1) Identification of the Flooding Area and Non-Flooding Area based on Simulation Study In order to realize the national-level feed supplying system in a time of disaster, identification of the flooding area is necessary as the first step based on simulation analysis on map. By doing so, all the 77 provinces, districts and sub-districts (Tambons) of the country can be divided into two categories, flooding area and non-flooding area on maps. At each community level where the area may be affected by flood, mapping by people/farmers under control of TAO will be necessary to identify: 1) location of livestock farmers by animal type, 2) livestock farmers who will not be affected by flood, 3) the higher areas being not affected by flood in the community etc.

Number of ruminants Estimation of Construction

that will stay hay of a few to at requirement several Total number community to be stored storages in a of ruminant community animals in a Number of community ruminants that will evacuate to safe area from flood

2) Procedure to Estimate Feed Requirement during Flood In the area of a Tambon community predicted as a flood area based on the simulation analysis, following will be necessary to estimate number of livestock, mainly cattle and goats/sheep to be fed feed during and after flooding:

• Number of livestock and livestock farmers who will evacuate to adjacent areas/provinces located at non-flooded areas/provinces when flood comes, • Number of livestock farmers who will stay at community because they can feed even in flooding period relying on stored feed, • Number of cattle and goats/sheep that stay at community even in flooding period, which will be the targeted number of cattle and goats/sheep of supplying feed in a disaster,

Then, after identifying the number of targeted livestock, those number should be converted into the Livestock Unit (LU) to estimated volume of feed to be stored at each community. LU in Thailand is as follows:

2-27 DLD The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report Livestock Livestock Unit (LU) LU (FAO) Cattle 1.00 0.65 Buffalo 1.00 0.70 Goat/sheep 0.15 0.10 Pig 0.38 0.25 Poultry 0.02 0.01

LU which will stay in a community even in a disaster can be calculated as below, and cattle, buffalo and sheep/goat shall be the target of feeding stored feed in a disaster according to their digestion system:

No. of Livestock tostay LU (2) LU=(1)x( ) Livestock in a community (1) 2 Cattle 1.00 Buffalo 1.00 Goat/sheep 0.15 Total - - A

3) Estimation of Feed Requirement to be Stored at Community Level Generally a cattle equivalent to one LU requires 12to 15 kg hay per day:

Items LU=a Cattle Assumption of body weight(kg/head) 500 Feed requirement per body weight in fresh (%) 12% Feed requirement in fresh (kg/head/day) 60 Feed requirement in hay (kg/head/day)on average * 13.5 Based on the estimated number of LU in 4.3, hay requirement can be calculated as shown in the table below.

Hay Hay to be Hay Requirement Requirement Flood Period Stored (ton) Estimated LU per LU per Day (days) * D=BxC/1000 (kg/LU/day) B=Ax13.5 A 13.5 B C D Note: *: Flooding period shall be predicted based on lesson in 2011 or simulation analysis

4) Estimation of Hay Storage

The floor area of storage as a model for 100 LU (livestock unit) can be calculated as shown below:

Conditions Assumption Body weight of a cattle (1 LU) 500 kg Intake of hay per day 13.5 kg/day/LU 60 days (to be varied Flood period depending on areas Number of cattle (LU) 100 LU (100 cattle) Requirement of hay 81.0 tons Cubic volume of hay per ton 3.9 ㎥/ton Estimated cubic volume of hay 315.9 ㎥ Height of hay bale’s heap 4.0m 79.1 ㎡ (8.9x8.9 for Required floor area example)

JICA 2-28 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Considering the influence of flooding area, it is recommendable to construct a few to several storages scattered at the selected higher places found in a community, not in one place, which will contribute to effective and convenient transportation of stored hay bales when disaster comes into a community.

(4) Monitoring Hay Storage by the DLD HQ DLD HQ is required to monitor status of feed storing at 29 ANRDCs in the country every month. There are 116 feed storages though the size is varied. The total storage capacity is about 100,000 m3 which is able to cover the consumption of 190,000 cows feed per day. Out of 29 ANRDCs, 28 have 1 to 7 storages with the size of 10mx20m. The Suphanburi ANRDC has 2 storages of 10mx28m size. To cope with possible flood in the foreseeable future, the role of 29 ANRDCs in a time of disaster are very important as performed in the 2011 flood because they are big producer of forage/hay with large capacity of storing (refer to the picture of a storage of ANRDC in Lampang). As well as monitoring hay storage, DLD HQ is also required to study effective transportation system of hay at the national level prior to a disaster.

The existing storing capacity of hay storages in the 29 ANRDCs in the country is as follows:

Hay Storage Items 10m x20m size 10m x28m size Total Hay storage (places)*9224116 Estimated capacity of storing (㎥) ** 73,600 26,880 100,480 Source: *:DLD HQ Note:**: calculated by JICA Team assuming at 4.0m for height of hay

(5) Further Capacity Building of Livestock Farmers It is the most important things to keep livestock healthy and productive even in a disaster such as flood and drought because livestock farmers have to live on animals as an income source. People are required to have common view that they need to cope with large scale flood though it may take place or may not take place. However, in fact, they are not so aware of importance of feed storing, animal health, feeding to meet nutrient requirement not only in a peacetime but also in flood and after flood. As JICA Team trained livestock farmers in the eight sites and two model areas, trainings covering various matters on livestock management will be necessary in every area of the country. By doing so, livestock farmers, especially small scale farmers who have not enough capital and knowledge, will be strengthened, resulting to realize stable production of animal products and stable livelihood of them. The DLD HQ has enough experience for this purpose and should have initiative in this field.

(6) Necessity for Improvement of Agricultural Machinery of ANRDCs The role of ANRDCs in a time of disaster is very important to support affected livestock farmers who are in shortage of animal feed. However, the condition of existing machinery for forage production and hay making in 29 center/station has deteriorated and in addition the number of their units is inadequate to cope with the emergent supply of hay/silage in a time of emergency (refer to the Table 2.8.1). It will be most ideal to improve and enrich machinery

2-29 DLD The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report necessary for forage production at the 29 centers/stations in the whole country. By doing so, forage production will be able to coordinate the supplementation between affected and unaffected centers/stations as illustrated in the paragraph 2.8.2.

JICA 2-30

JICA P The

2-31 Table 2.8.1 Existing Agricultural Machinery and Feed Storage in 29 ANRDCs r oject Tractor Attachment Hay Storage

f or Flood Rope Wire Hay Hay Seed Center/Station below Above Disc Hay Hay Disc Forage Drum Sickel Rotary Trailer Hay Hay Storage Storage Incubator 50HP 50HP Plough Spreader Raker Mower Harvestor Mower Mower Hoe Baler Baler (10x20m) (10x28m) C

1 Chainat 6 1 2 1 3 2 4 1 3 6 5 ounte 2 Suphanburi 2 1 1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 r

3 Sakaeo 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 mea 4 Nakhonratchasima 6 1 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 3 3 7 6 s u

5 Roi Et 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 r e s

6 Yasothon 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 f o r

7 Buriram 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 4 Thailand 8 Khonkaen 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 2 9 Mahasarakham 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 1 2 1 6 10 Udonthani 4 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 6 1 1 A

11 Kalasin 2 1 1 2 1 2 gricultu 12 Nakhonphanom 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 13 Sakonnakhon 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 r 14 Nongkhai 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 Secto al 15 Loei 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 3

16 Mukdahan 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 r 17 Lampang 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 3 18 Phrae 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 19 Phetchabun 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 4 20 Sukhothai 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 21 Phichit 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 22 Petchaburi 5 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 6 2 23 Prachuapkhirikhan 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 24 Chumpon 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 25 Suratthani 5 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 26 Narathiwat 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 5 27 Trang 4 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 28 Satun 3 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 3 29 Phatthalung 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Final Repor Final Total 93 4 17 24 20 26 35 28 20 36 43 19 20 92 24 81

Source: DLD t

The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report (7) Linkages with Component 3 1) Model Areas The two following sites were selected for conducting livestock-related projects in the model areas selected for Component 3.

Tambon Province District Name Characteristics 1,066 households. Rain-fed, elevated area adjacent to irrigated 1. Chainat Wat Sing Wang Man area. Cattle are mainly raised by 103 farmer households (10% of total households) 974 households. 80% Buddhist 2. Phra Nakhon Si Lat Bua Luang Singhanat and 20% Muslim. Cattle (70%) Ayutthaya and goats (30%) are raised

2) Planning for Livestock Related-Pilot Projects  Preparation of a community map using participatory approaches assuming a sudden evacuation of livestock and people: Information should be included in the map such as the distribution of livestock, location of elevated areas, evacuation routes, order of evacuation (priority to large- scale livestock farmers), location of feed, etc.  Survey about the nearest places for evacuation of livestock in a time of emergency and preparing an agreement with those communities.  Increase of forage production: Pakchong-1 and sweet sorghum on upland, Pangola grass on lower land using existing water sources such as farm ponds for irrigation.  Hay/silage storage: Making hay, silage, and Urea Molasses Mineral Blocks (UMMB).  Improving goat raising in Muslim communities. i) Provision of bucks to improve the productivity of existing goats. ii) Construction of goat houses with elevated floors considering flood water levels, goat behavior and their health. iii) Goat milk processing and marketing: Introduction of milk type goats, processing of cheese, yoghurt, ice cream, soap etc. 3) Training of farmers on pasture management, forage production, livestock management during and after flooding, animal health, livestock selection, etc. 4) Provision of hay making equipment and hay/silage storage: Grass cutter, hay baler, grass chopper, plastic bags for silage making, vacuum blower, hay fork, hay/silage storage etc. 5) Biogas fuel using cow/cattle dung.

JICA 2-32 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report CHAPTER 3. COMPONENT 2: REHABILITATION AND REINFORCEMENT OF IRRIGATION FACILITIES 3.1. Background

This chapter explains all activities and results carried out between April and October 2012 as well as conclusions and recommendations under Component 2 of this JICA Project for the rehabilitation and reinforcement of irrigation facilities in the agriculture sector.

In the original plan, Component 2 mainly focused on: 1) flood recovery and prevention works implemented by RID, 2) flood recovery of Japan-assisted facilities in past projects, and 3) technical advice and assistance on rehabilitation and improvement works for irrigation facilities through the implementation of the pilot project. However, as the implementation of pilot project was canceled after selection, the third task was not fully attained.

RID is the main agency involved in planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance on water resources management project in Thailand. Total irrigated area in 2010 was 29.3 million rai (=4.7 million ha) against irrigation potential area of 60.3 million rai (=9.6 million ha) according to RID. Of 29.3 million rai, 24.2 million rai (=3.9 million ha) are for the large and medium scale irrigation systems under O&M of RID, while 5.1 million rai (=0.8 million ha) are for small scale irrigation system including pumping irrigation under O&M of TAOs and farmer groups. Number of irrigation systems under O&M of RID in whole country is 86 for large scale (more than 80,000 rai) and 731 for medium scale (less than 80,000 rai) as of 2010.

3.2. Flood Damage, Recovery and Prevention Works on Irrigation and Drainage Facilities operated by RID

3.2.1. Flood Damage on Irrigation and Drainage Facilities According to the World Bank assessment report (December 2011) regarding the 2011 flood damage, over 11% of the present irrigation and drainage areas were damaged. The total damage to the flood control, drainage and irrigation infrastructure under RID was estimated at 7.72 billion baht (about 260 million USD), which does not include damage to the on-farm irrigation and drainage facilities nor damage and losses of agriculture, livestock and fishery productive sub-sector.

Damages by the 2011 flood on irrigation and drainage facilities were very severe for those parts related to social, commercial and industrial infrastructure in rural and urban areas. Major facilities damaged were river / canal banks and slopes as eroded and collapsed due to overtopping of flood water, village roads and bridges as collapses and washed away due to erosion, canals / reservoirs / ponds as heavily silted due to flood water, drainage regulating gates at rivers and canals as damaged and collapsed due to flood water pressure and overtopping. For the recovery of those damages, an emergency recovery budget apart from the regular RID annual budget was created and then those projects assessed emergency with priority have been implemented.

On the other hand, flood damage on irrigation and drainage facilities related to agricultural production in the agriculture sector is observed in various structures such as canal embankment, distribution structures and regulating gates in main and lateral canals, road crossing culverts and siphons, canal bridges, tail end outlets canals and on-farm facilities. For repair and rehabilitation of such structures, RID O&M Projects and Regional Irrigation Offices carried out investigation, planning and

3-1 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report design. Those projects are being implemented as a routine O&M activity within RID O&M budget under the 6-year Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). Among such repairs, in case of small and urgent works, they were executed immediately after the floods by O&M Project offices.

3.2.2. Emergency Flood Recovery and Prevention Works on Irrigation and Drainage Facilities As explained in the previous section, flood damage was severe to social-related functions of irrigation and drainage facilities. Therefore, recovery and prevention works being implemented as emergency countermeasures also focus on these functions. In other words, current recovery projects focus on the social, commercial and industrial purposes of irrigation and drainage facilities, but not necessarily on agricultural needs such as recovery of crop production.

Figure 3.2.1 and Table 3.2.1 show the number of projects on flood recovery and prevention by facility type being implemented by RID. Regarding the number of projects by type, the most common are repair, reconstruction or heightening of river banks and canal dikes, which make up 47% of the 1,283 projects in the study area, followed by repair of drainage regulators (25%), repair or reconstruction of roads and bridges (11%), dredging of rivers and canals (7%) and distribution of pumps and generators (5%). From this, it can be seen that social-related projects account for 95% of the total projects. Most projects are planned to be completed by October 2012 before the start of the rainy, flood season.

Dams/reservoirs Drainage siphon for repair 1% for repair 1%

Weirs for repair Others 1% 2%

Equipment distribution 5% River bank/canal Road/bridge for dike for repair or repair or heightening 47% reconstruction 11% Drainage regulators for repair or Ratio of Recovery Projects by Facility Type Rivers/canals for reconstruction (1283 projects in total in the Study Area) 25% dredging 7%

Figure 3.2.1 RID’s Flood Recovery and Prevention Projects by Facility Type

JICA 3-2 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report Table 3.2.1 RID’s Flood Recovery and Prevention Projects by Facility Type

Number of projects No. Structural category Additional Additional Additional Batch -1 Batch -2 Batch -3 Emergency Total -1 -2 -3 projects % River banks / canal dikes for repair, 1 reconstruction or heightening 39 364 151 41 15 3 2 615 48% 2 Rivers / drains / canals for dredging 7 8 3 39 30 0 0 87 7% Drainage regulators / gates for repair or 3 reconstruction 16 172 88 22 25 2 1 326 25% Roads / bridges / culverts for repair or 4 reconstruction 20 73 40 0 2 0 0 135 11% Mechanical / electrical equipment such as 5 pumps, generators, etc. for distibution 0 4 2 39 18 2 0 65 5% 6 River weirs for repair 6 16 0 0 0 0 0 22 2% 7 Dams / reservoirs for repair or construction 2 3 1 0 0 2 0 8 1% 8 Drainage siphons for repair 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 7 1% 9 Others 4 9 3 2 0 0 0 18 1% Total 94 655 289 143 90 9 3 1,283 100% Note 1: Projects only in the Study Area (RID regional irrigation offices 3, 4, 10 ,11 ,12 and 13) are counted.

Current projects being implemented by RID for flood recovery and prevention are categorized into several groups depending on planning initiatives and budget approval processes. The total number of projects approved was 2,236 projects (about for 12 billion baht) nationwide as of August 2012. The project team conducted the field observation and confirmed their construction work and construction drawings at the sites. They had been implemented according to the drawings and observed in good progress with the commendable efforts of RID as summarized in Table 3.2.2. Construction drawings for typical prevention works and structures are presented in the Appendix I- C-1.

2012/8/9, Reconstruction of Chao Phraya River bank 2012/5/20, Reconstruction of drainage regulator and along national road 304 in Chainat Province river bank connected to Tha Chin River in Suphan Buri Province

i) Batch-1 (555 sites in the country) This project group was the first one approved with budget and covers the entire country. About 40% of the projects in this group are located in the middle and lower Chao Phraya River basin. Projects are mostly small repair and rehabilitation works with the 2011/12 budget to prevent flood disasters in the 2012 wet season and are presently nearly completed. Overall work progress was 96.5% as of September 2012.

3-3 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report Table 3.2.2 Progress of RID Rehabilitation Projects for Flood Recovery (September 24, 2012)

Project category Unit Chaophraya river basin area Other Total Remark Upper basin Middle Lower basin areas in the basin country

1. Total of Batch-1 to 3 & Emergency-SCWRM 1) No. of sites site 302 325 903 590 2120 2) Budget approved million baht 681.71 1,559.13 6,351.62 2,571.60 11,164.06 (million yen) (1,840.61) (4,209.66) (17,149.37) (6,943.32) (30,142.95) 3) Disbursement status % 98.69% 87.32% 82.14% 75.27% 82.32%

1-1. Batch-1 For small repair but most 1) No. of sites site 167 45 69 274 555 urgent with completion 2) Budget approved million baht 307.91 105.79 69.26 635.98 1,118.94 target of August 2012 (million yen) (831.36) (285.63) (187.00) (1,717.15) (3,021.14) 3) Disbursement status % 99.50% 68.97% 99.39% 99.32% 96.51%

1-2. Batch-2 For small repair but most 1) No. of sites site 74 212 483 186 955 urgent with completion 2) Budget approved million baht 203.40 657.86 1,421.08 422.82 2,705.16 target of October 2012 (million yen) (549.18) (1,776.22) (3,836.92) (1,141.61) (7,303.93) 3) Disbursement status % 98.86% 98.00% 97.23% 99.08% 97.83%

1-3. Batch-3 For small repair but most 1) No. of sites site 60 48 248 125 481 urgent with completion 2) Budget approved million baht 138.86 165.00 784.44 378.67 1,466.98 target of October 2012 (million yen) (374.93) (445.51) (2,117.98) (1,022.42) (3,960.84) 3) Disbursement status % 99.88% 98.94% 91.83% 96.44% 94.58%

1-4. Emergency-SCWRM For big repair 1) No. of sites site 1 20 103 5 129 programmed by 2) Budget approved million baht 31.53 630.48 4,076.84 1,134.13 5,872.98 SCWRM. 2 years (million yen) (85.14) (1,702.29) (11,007.47) (3,062.14) (15,857.04) implementation - 2011/12 3) Disbursement status % 84.47% 76.22% 74.73% 45.85% 69.36% and 2012/13 budget.

2. Additional sites No.1 Approved on May 15, 1) No. of sites site 0 0 116 0 116 2012 with focus on urban 2) Budget approved million baht 1,051.04 1,051.04 area to protect from flood (million yen) (2,837.80) (2,837.80) in 2012. Completion 3) Disbursement status % 14.92% 14.92% target is October 2012

3. Additional sites No.2 Under approval process. 1) No. of sites site 2 3 6 0 11 This includes 2 dam 2) Budget approved million baht 17,635.00 13,635.45 1,045.00 32,315.45 projects in Chiang Mai & (million yen) (47,614.50) (36,815.70) (2,821.50) (87,251.70) Nakhon Sawan. Budget is 3) Disbursement status % N.A up to year 2019.

4. Additional sites No.3 Under approval process. 1) No. of sites site 0 0 3 0 3 This is to supplement the 2) Budget approved million baht 498.92 498.92 Emergency-SCWRM (million yen) (1,347.09) (1,347.09) listed above. 3) Disbursement status % N.A

ii) Batch-2 (955 projects in the country) This project group was the second one approved with budget and the area focuses on the middle and lower Chao Phraya River basin where the floods damage was most serious. As with Batch-1 above, projects are mostly small repair and rehabilitation works and are also being implemented rapidly with the 2011/12 budget to prevent flood disasters in 2012. Overall work progress was JICA 3-4 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report 97.8% as of September 2012.

iii) Batch-3 (481 projects in the country) Similar to Batch-1 and Batch-2 above, projects in this group are also mostly small repair and rehabilitation works and were implemented with 2011/12 budget to ensure completion before the 2012 flood season. The area particularly focuses on the lower Chao Phraya River basin where flood damage was the worst in the 2011 flood. Overall work progress was 94.6% as of September 2012.

iv) Emergency - SCWRM (129 projects in the country) In contrast to Batches-1-3 above, this project group is for big rehabilitation works programmed by the Strategic Committee for Water Resources Management (SCWRM). They are presently implemented under a two-year implementation plan with 2011/12 and 2012/13 budgets. Construction of the concrete wall along the Chinat- Pasak canal is included in this group. These projects are located in the lower Chao Phraya River basin. Overall work progress was 69.4% as of September 2012.

2012/8/9, Concrete wall (H=1.0m) constructed along 2012/5/16, Driving concrete piles for the construction Chainat – Pasak Canal. Bank crest revel is heightened of concrete flood walls at C-22 irrigation canal, branch by 0.6m. of Chainat – Pasak Canal

v) Additional Sites No. 1 (116 projects in the country) This group was programmed late, and was approved in May 2012, with particular focus on urban areas in the lower Chao Phraya River basin to protect them from flood disasters in 2012. Completion target of this group was October 2012. Overall work progress was 14.9% as of September 2012.

vi) Additional Sites No. 2 (11 projects in the country) This group is under approval process. The projects include two dam projects with an implementation schedule up to the year 2019, therefore a relatively large budget is proposed. The two dams are Mae Kung Udom Tara Dam (existing) in Chiang Mai and Mae Wong Dam (new) in Nakhon Sawan Province.

vii) Additional Sites No. 3 (3 projects in the country) This group was proposed in late May 2012 to supplement the Emergency–SCWRM group listed above. Therefore, the project scale is quite small.

3-5 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

2012/5/17, Construction drawing for rehabilitation of 2012/5/17, Observing river/canal network map under irrigation canal dike in Lop Buri Province Khok Ka Teim O&M Project in Region 10, Lop Buri Province

3.2.3. MTEF Plan and Emergency Recovery and Prevention Works RID annually formulates the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) plan as a 6-year expenditure proposal for all RID projects/works for the operation, maintenance and improvement of irrigation systems and integrated water resources management. The MTEF is divided into four categories as follows:

C-1: Improvement and management of irrigation system for existing O&M projects, C-2: Development of water resources and increase of irrigation areas through new medium scale irrigation projects, water resources and small scale irrigation projects, C-3: Water hazard prevention and mitigation through dam improvement, monkey cheeks and drainage systems. C-4: Construction of large scale projects for dams, reservoirs, river basin development, drainage system and others.

Table 3.2.3 gives the number of projects/works, as 3,521 projects in total, under the MTEF plan for the year 2012 – 2017 for six RID regions in the middle and lower Chao Phraya River basin in the study area by project category. RID’s budget for 2013 is about 35.5 billion baht, and category C-1 (1,180 projects) and C-2 (1,400 projects) each are allocated about 36% of the budget. In the case of the 2011 flood, however, the special emergency budget was appropriated for recovery and prevention of the flood damage, separate from the MTEF. The emergency budget projects were categorized into several groups such as Batch-1, Batch-2 and Batch-3 as described above.

Table 3.2.3 Number of Projects in MTEF Plan 2012-2017 by Category

Category of projects RIO-3 RIO-4 RIO-10 RIO-11 RIO-12 RIO-13 Total C-1 Improvement and management of existing 275 38 234 92 280 261 1180 O&M Project (1) Improvement of whole system 106 025425 0 178 (2) Repair of selected facilities 169 38 209 50 275 261 1002 C-2 Development of water resources and 332 321 212 9 168 358 1400 increase of irrigation areas (1) Medium scale construction projects 34 45 36 0 20 35 170 (2) Small scale construction projects 298 276 176 9 148 323 1230 C-3 Water hazard prevention and mitigation 214 117 163 136 205 105 940 C-4 Large scale projects 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Total 821 476 610 237 653 724 3521 MTEF: Medium Term Expenditure Framework RIO: Regional Irrigation Office Source: RID

JICA 3-6 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report 3.3. Confirmation of Flood Damage and Recovery of Projects Assisted by Japan in the Past

A number of aid projects assisted by Japan have been implemented during the past several decades. Among these, projects located in the area affected by the Chao Phraya River flood were selected and the flood damages were studied to identify suitable rehabilitation pilot projects for this Project. The candidate projects are listed in the following table. (Refer to Figure3.3.1 for the location)

Table 3.3.1 Projects Implemented through the Assistance of Japanese Funding Agencies

Projects Implemented by the Assistance of Japanese Funding Agency

Asisting Executing Date of Location Date of No. Name of Project agecy of agency of Fund commenc Changwat completion Japan side Thai side ement

1 Chao Phrya Irrigation Project Ayuttaya JICA/OECF ALRO Loan 1980/5 1985/3 Pasak Irrigation Project (Kaeng 2 Saraburi JICA/OECF RID Loan Khoi-Ban Mo Pumping Irrigation 1981/7 2004/1 Phitsanulok Uttaradit Small Scale Irrigation Program Phichit Nakhon (SSIP) Sawan 1978/1 1989/1 Kamphaeng Phet Sukhothai 3 Lopburi OECF RID Loan Phechabun Saraburi Small Scale Irrigation Improvement Nonthaburi 1998/4 and Rehabilitation Project (SSIRP) Chinat 2003/4 Uthai Thani Suphanburi Large Swamp Inland Fishery 4 Nakhon Sawan OECF DOF Loan Project (LSIFP) 1985/5 1993/9

Phitsanulok Phechabun Small Swamp Inland Fishery Phichit Nakhon 5 OECF DOF Loan 1982/6 1988/1 Project (SSIFP) Sawan Kamphaeng Phet Sukhothai

3-7 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

SSIP SSIRP

SSIFP

LSIFP –Bung Boraped Sub‐ project

ChoaPhraya Irrigation Project Pasak Irrigation

Project

Figure 3.3.1 Location Map of Projects Assisted by Japan

JICA 3-8 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report 3.3.1. Chao Phraya Irrigation Project by the Agricultural Land Reform Office (ALRO) (1) Project Area The project area of about 12,620 ha is located in Lad Bua Luang District (Amphoe), Ayutthaya Province (Changwat), 70 km north of Bangkok, and lies on the right side of the Chao Phraya River. The topography of the project area is very flat with an average slope of about 1/20,000 from the northwest to the southeast. The elevation ranges from 1.75 m to 2.25 m above mean sea level. The average annual rainfall is 1,300 mm. The main crop is paddy for wet and dry seasons (2 times a year). The average flood water level was 2.60 m during the flood in September – December, and the maximum flood water level before the project was 3.10 m, which was recorded in 1975.

(2) Project History JICA carried out the feasibility study for “the Irrigated Agricultural Development Project in the West Bank Tract of the Greater Chao Phraya” during October 1976 – May 1977. The detailed design was completed in February 1982 and the Government of Thailand secured the project implementation with OECF loan of the total amount of 2,650 million yen in July 1982. The project was completed in 1988.

(3) Project Facilities The total gross area of 12,620 ha is divided into 10 Farm Blocks and these Farm Blocks are protected by 6 polder dikes with an embankment crest elevation of 3.5 m above mean sea level, i.e. an average height of about 1.5 m from the ground surface. The crest width of the dike is mostly 4 m. However, dikes used as provincial roads have 8 m wide. The pumping stations were constructed with 2 sets of pumps with a diameter of 700 mm and total head of 4 m and capacity of 36 m3/min in each Farm Block 1 – 10.

(4) 2011 Flood Damage Since the completion of the project in 1988, the project area had been protected by polder dikes with crest elevation of 3.5 m above mean sea level. The flood water level exceeded the crest level of the polder dike by 50 cm for the first time in 2006. However, the farmlands were protected from inundation in Farm Blocks 1 – 4, because the polder dikes were temporarily raised by 50 cm. These temporary dikes were later removed because the dikes were used as rural roads and temporary embankments were an obstacle for smooth traffic.

In the 2011 flood, the water level went up as high as 5 m above mean sea level, which is 1.5 m higher than the polder dikes. Again, temporary dikes were constructed in Farm Blocks 1 – 4. The farmlands in these blocks were protected and paddy rice was harvested successfully. The flood continued for about 2 months from November to December and the paddy rice in Farm Blocks 5 – 10 were completely damaged. The damage to the irrigation facilities was not serious.

The pumping stations had no direct damage from the flood. Major damages were erosion and sliding of the slope of the dikes. Although there were serious damages on the agriculture crop (paddy) especially in Blocks 5-10, and sliding of the embankment slope of the canals was seen in some places, no critical damage to the major irrigation facilities were reported.

3-9 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

2011/10/23, Temporary dikes were constructed to 2011/10/27, The farm block 5-10 were totally raise the crest of the 1-4 farm block inundated because of no temporary dikes

3.3.2. Pasak Irrigation Project by RID (Kaeng Khoi-Ban Mo Pumping Irrigation Project) (1) Project Area The project area extends across two districts, District Kaeng Khoi and District Ban Mo, in Sara Buri Province. The area is located on the right bank of the Pasak River and the left bank of the Chainat- Pasak Canal. The soil and the topography are suitable for paddy cultivation. However, due to the higher elevation of the land, the area cannot be irrigated by gravity flow from either the Pasak river or the Chainat-Pasak Canal.

(2) Project History RID proposed the Pumping Irrigation Scheme and requested JICA to conduct the feasibility study through the technical cooperation program. The feasibility study of the project was completed in 1981 followed by a detailed design carried out under E/S loan from OECF in 1985. Due to the social and economic situation prevailing in the country in the subsequent period, the proposed project could not be implemented for a long time.

In 1994, RID decided to apply for a project loan from OECF in order to speed up implementation of the project. The loan amount of 3,038 million yen was approved and agreed between RID and OECF. The detailed design was carried out in 1998 and 1999. The construction work was started in 2001 and was completed in 2005.

(3) Project Facilities The project facilities are as follows;

a. Pumping Station 6 unit + 1 spare, 2.44 m3/sec/unit Total Max. Capacity 17.08 m3/sec

b. Irrigation Canal System 1 Main canal of 34.145 km 11 Lateral canals and 19 Sub-lateral canals of 104.885 km Irrigation structures along the canal 834 units

c. Drainage Canal System 14 Drainage canals of 83.409 km Control unit of 159 units

JICA 3-10 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report d. Irrigation Area Construction stage 86,700 rai After a change in land use due to the expansion of community, economy, and manufacturing enterprise; At present 67,356 rai

(4) 2011 Flood Damage The pumping station is located at the right bank of Pasak River. However, the maximum water level of the Pasak River in 2011 did not reach the floor level of the pumping house. The 2011 flood did not cause any damage to the pumping station. As the project area is located in a rather elevated area, no damages were caused to the irrigation canals and drainage canals. The low lying area of 1,000 rai was affected by inundation caused by hillside runoff and the backwater of the Pasak River when the Rama VI barrage gates were closed. This phenomenon is very common.

3.3.3. Small Scale Irrigation Program (SSIP) and Small Scale Irrigation Improvement and Rehabilitation Project (SSIRP) by RID (1) Project History The objective of the SSIP was to provide water sources for irrigation and domestic use to those areas where the people lacked access to a water source. The project has constructed reservoirs, weirs and head regulators and no water distribution canals were incorporated. SSIP was implemented by the OECF yen loan of 6 stages from Stage I to Stage VI in 1977 to 1985.The project has constructed more than 4,000 facilities in these areas remote from water sources especially in the Northeastern Region 50%, in the Northern Region 20%, and 10% each in the Central, Eastern and Southern Regions.

Approximately 30 years have passed since the completion of the project facilities. The documents concerning the project have been scattered or lost in this time. The number of projects is huge and it is very difficult to grasp the present condition of every project and the effect of the 2011 Chao Phraya River flood.

Recently, RID had an opportunity to avail of a JBIC (Japan Bank for International Cooperation) yen loan to rehabilitate small scale irrigation facilities as a part of a Social Investment Project. RID has selected a number of major SSIP project facilities for SSIRP. In line with the above, RID prepared the Small Scale Irrigation Improvement and Rehabilitation Project (SSIRP) for JBIC assistance under the Loan Agreement No. TXXIII-1.

(2) SSIRP Objectives The objectives of Small Scale Irrigation Improvement and Rehabilitation Project (SSIRP) are as follows;

i. To rehabilitate and improve existing small scale irrigation projects, especially those implemented by SSIP, ii. To increase job creation and raise income for rural people, particularly to increase employment during the economic recession iii. To extend distribution systems in existing projects of SSIP iv. To improve the quality of life of rural people by supplying both domestic and irrigation water.

3-11 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report (3) Project Implementation RID decided the implementation plan consisted of 570 sub-projects with a total budget of 1,597.702 million baht in1998 and completed in 2003 (4) 2011 Flood Damage 1) Method of SSIRP Inventory Survey The project team conducted the inventory survey of 106 facilities in the study area which were repaired or improved under the SSIRP project. Result of Inventory survey is listed in Appendix I-C-2-5. Detail information (Such as project location or repaired period) is shown in Appendix I-C-2-6. The survey was carried out from 14th June 2011 to 31st August 2011 in cooperation with RID Bangkok Headquarters, RID Regional Office, Province Office and TAO. The degree of damage was assessed according to following category. The questionnaire used in the survey is shown in Appendix I-C-2-7.

 No damage: The facility has no or slightly damaged by 2011 flood. Repairmen for the felicities are unnecessary and can use for irrigation.  Slightly damaged: The facility has damaged by 2011 flood and need to be repaired in prompt.  Seriously damaged: The facility has damaged by 2011 flood and need to be repaired or new construction

2) Analysis on SSIRP Inventory Survey Result After the SSIP project, the operation and maintenance (O&M) of almost all facilities were transferred to TAO. But some projects, such as those constructed under the King’s Project or those with a large beneficiary area (more than 4,000 rai according to interview in the field), are still under RID O&M. Among the 106 facilities, 7 facilities are still under RID O&M, and for the remaining facilities O&M have been handed over to TAO. The number of damaged facilities and the extent of damage is shown in Figure 3.3.2 and Table 3.3.2. Details are given in Appendix I-C-2. Cannot find 14% 15 Projects

Serious Damage 4%4 Projects No Damage

75% 80 Projects

Slight Damage 7% 7 Projects

Figure 3.3.2 Rate of damaged degree by 2011 flood

Table 3.3.2 Result of SSIRP Inventory Survey by Province Regional No. of Not Slightly Seriously Cannot Province Office No. Project Damaged Damaged Damaged Find 1 Phisanulok 14 7 6 1

2 Uttaradit 7 4 3 3 3 Phichit 20 15 1 4 4 Nakhon Sawan 8 8 Sub-total 49 34 7 1 7 5 KamphaengPhet 4 3 1 4 6 Sukhothai 3 3 Sub-total 7 6 1

JICA 3-12 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report 7 LopBuri 2 1 1 8 Phetchabun 15 12 2 1 10 9 Saraburi 11 11 Sub-total 28 24 2 2 10 Nonthaburi 1 1 11 Sub-total 1 1 11 Chainat 5 4 1 12 UthaiT hani 8 5 3 12 13 Suphanburi 8 6 2 Sub-total 21 15 6 T otal 106 80 7 4 15

2012/7/10, No.66, Bueng Sakae Weir at Phetchabun 2012/7/10, No.69, Bung Sam Phan Weir at Province under O&M of TAO. River revetment was Phetchabun Province under O&M of TAO. heavily collapsed. Downstream of weir body was heavily scored.

3) Current Status of Recovery for Damaged Facilities by RID or TAO  Current status of recovery for seriously damaged facilities. i) No10 Ban Hin Lat Reservoir (Phitsanulok Province) RID is in charge of O&M. The facilities were already repaired (It cost 2 million baht according interviews) and they are used for irrigation. ii) No.52 Ban Dan Yai Weir (Kamphaeng Phet Province) RID is in charge of O&M. The RID plan was to start the survey in October 2011 to repair the facility. iii) No.66 Bueng Sakae Weir（Phetchabun Province) TAO is in charge of O&M. The facility is not expected to be repaired because the TAO has given priority to use the budget for repairing infrastructure such as roads. iv) No.69 Bung Sam Phan Weir（Phetchabun Province) This facility is also not expected to be repaired forthe same reason as iii)  Current status of recovery for slightly damaged facilities Water Users Group (WUG) is dredging and repairing the facilities with their own labor. When machines are required, TAO provides support.

3.3.4. Large Swamp Inland Fishery Project (LSIFP) by the Department of Fisheries (DOF) (Bung Boraped Sub-project) (1) Project Area In Thailand, there are 48 large swamps, of which Bung Boraped Nong, situated in Nakon Sawan (Central Thailand), is one of the largest. It has been contributing a sustainable amount of fish

3-13 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report production to the people residing in the area, but has also been suffering from problems such as sedimentation, accumulation of aquatic weed, illegal encroachment, over fishing, pollution, upstream development, etc. The dimension of the swamp is as follows;

- Reservoir Area at Retention WL 138.53 km2 - Active Storage Capacity 109.9 MCM - Effective Water Depth 1.0 m

(2) Project History In 1985, the Thai Government decided to apply for a project loan of 2,651 million yen from OECF for the Large Swamp Inland Fisheries Project including Nong Han Sub-project and Kwan Phayao Sub- project, with the Department of Fisheries (DOF) as the executing agency. The feasibility study was conducted in 1985. Upon the completion of the feasibility study, the detailed design was started to prepare construction drawings, cost estimates, construction schedule, technical specifications and tender documents, and was completed in August 1986. The construction work was started in 1991 and completed in 1993.

(3) Project Objectives The objectives of the project are as follows;

- To rehabilitate the swamps so that they are more suitable for increasing fish production. - To increase the fisheries stations facilities and capabilities sufficient to serve the local need regarding aquaculture training and extension as well as supplying seeds. - To increase the storage capacity of the swamps so that the domestic water supply, both in quality and quantity, be can assured. The surplus water can be used for irrigation through provision of distribution systems. - To minimize flood damages to the areas along the periphery of the swamps. - To improve or maintain quality of the swamp water at the level which is suitable for both domestic water supply and fish production by proposing proper waste treatment and sanitation facilities.

(4) Project Facilities

The major facilities constructed in the project are as follows; - Construction and rehabilitation of weirs and gates 4 sites

- Construction of dike and dirt road 30 km - Construction of drainage canal and dredging 13 km

- Construction of irrigation system 1,120 ha - Construction of fishery station and procurement of laboratory equipment - Procurement of O&M equipment

(5) 2011 Flood Damage This swamp area was totally inundated for 3 months and a large amount of sedimentation has been left. Offices and hatchery ponds were also inundated. Buildings, facilities, laboratory equipment and O&M mechanical equipment, including dredging boats, bulldozers, backhoes and tracks, were seriously damaged. Usually, there are small floods every year in November when the Chao Phraya River water levels become high and flood water flows into the swamp. But unlike the huge flood in 2011, these small floods do not cause damage to facilities. A list of equipment and facilities damaged by the 2011 flood that need repair or replacement is attached (See Table 3.3.3 for the list of flood

JICA 3-14 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report damaged equipment).

This swamp and the fishery station are operated by DOF, and is one of the main inland fishery development centers in Thailand. The annual volume of dredging for maintenance of the swamp is usually 500,000 m3. However, as the flood in 2011 has brought a huge amount of sediment, dredging of Bung Boraped Swamp (V=4 MCM) has just been commenced by DOF, hired contractors and the military. The work is set to be completed in 4 months before the start of 2012 flood season. Rehabilitation of concrete structures such as offices, laboratories, workshops, storages, hatcheries and ponds is on-going with the 2012/2013 budget. On the other hand, the extent of damage to laboratory/ office equipment, aquarium operation system, O&M equipment, water tanks, etc. has not yet been determined. A detailed assessment on such electrical / mechanical equipment will be needed.

2012/5/25, Main regulating dam for Bung Boraped 2012/5/25, Just commenced dredging heavy silt built in 1994. Left side is inside swamp, right side caused by floods. Target volume is 4 MCM in 4 is water way to Chaophraya River. months.

3-15 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report Table 3.3.3 List of Flood-Damaged Equipment (Nakhon Sawan Freshwater Fishery Development Center) Nakhon Sawan Freshwater Fishery Development Center

Rehabilitation Estimated Priorit Damaged Items Pattern of Damage Photo Location Approach (repair/ budget (Baht) y cost (Baht) construct/ others) for repair 1 Hatchery air Intergrated circuit was damaged, Tambon Kwai Yai, 40,000 repair as a damaged 40,000 control unit causing the system cannot work Muang District, condition that was properly Nakhon Sawan found at that time

2 Air Engine could not work fully during Tambon Kwai Yai, 10,000 repair as a damaged 10,000 generator floods occur due to the blackout, Muang District, condition that was affecting the fingerling in the Nakhon Sawan found at that time nursery house

3 Water pump Motor did not work properly, Tambon Kwai Yai, 5,000 repair as a damaged 5,000 causing water was pumped into Muang District, condition that was the pond slowly, affecting a Nakhon Sawan found at that time change of water for fish breeders and fingerling

4 Plumbing Plumbing system beneath the Tambon Kwai Yai, 5,000 repair as a damaged 5,000 system ground was damaged since there is Muang District, condition that was

a water leak from the dike Nakhon Sawan found at that time construction for flood protection and waste electricity for pumping water out

5 Aquarium Filter system could not work Tambon Kwai Yai, 200,000 repair as a damaged 200,000 water filter properly, causing water filter has Muang District, condition that was low quality affecting water Nakhon Sawan found at that time condition in the aquarium

6 Microscope Electrical circuit system could not Tambon Kwai Yai, 20,000 not repaired yet 20,000 work properly, microscope lens Muang District, have a fungus and be unusable Nakhon Sawan 7 Vehicle Engine & electrical system were Tambon Kwai Yai, 200,000 not repaired yet 200,000 damaged affecting fingerling Muang District, removal, damaged vehicle i.e. Nakhon Sawan pick-up truck and 6 wheels truck

8 Incubator It was unusable. Tambon Kwai Yai, 50,000 not repaired yet 50,000 Muang District, Nakhon Sawan 9 Oven It was unusable Tambon Kwai Yai, 50,000 not repaired yet 50,000 Muang District, Nakhon Sawan 10 Air 8 air conditioners were damaged Tambon Kwai Yai, 240,000 unable to repair, 240,000 Conditioner by flood Muang District, need to buy a new Nakhon Sawan one 11 Computer It was damaged from moisture Tambon Kwai Yai, 10,000 repair as a damaged 10,000 (PC) because of flood Muang District, condition Nakhon Sawan

Total 830,000

JICA 3-16 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report 3.3.5. Small Swamp Inland Fisheries Project (SSIFP) by DOF (1) Project Area Thailand has about 6,000 natural water bodies or swamps with a total area of more than 1 million rai (1,600 km2). However, these swamps are currently in a state of deterioration. DOF has attempted to rehabilitate the deteriorated natural swamps through efforts on water resources cum fishing development.

The proposed swamps for rehabilitation are located in three separate regions, namely Upper Northern, Lower Northern, and Eastern. Among the three regions, the area affected by the flood of the Chao Phraya River in 2011 is the Lower Northern Region.

(2) Project History The rehabilitation of natural swamps was initiated in 1979. A major boom in swamp rehabilitation emerged in 1982, when the Thai government received a yen loan for the rehabilitation of 100 small swamps together with the development of fish seed centers and equipment centers in the Northern and Eastern Regions. Subsequently, there was another yen loan for the rehabilitation of three large swamps in the Northern and Northeastern Regions, together with the implementation of the small swamp project. An OECF loan of 4,900 million yen was given to the project and the work commenced in 1983.

(3) Major Facilities

The Number of Rehabilitated Swamps is shown below:

Province (changwat) Phase I Phase II Total Nakhon Sawan, 4 8 12 Kamphaeng Phet, 8 4 12 Phichit, 13 10 23 Phisanulok, 5 9 14 Sukhouthai 11 5 16 Phechabun, 8 6 14 Total 49 42 91

(4) 2011 Flood Damage

According to the survey conducted by DOF, damages or impact reported for the small swamps of SSIFP are as follows;

Province District Project Name Damage/Impact

Nakonsawan Klok Pra Nong Plong shallow by sediment Nong Bua Nong Krub flooded Phitsanulok Muang Nong Kradan shallow by sediment, dike damaged Ban Ra Kam Nong Ma Khang shallow by sediment, gate damaged Uttaradit Muang Bung Pa Sao shallow by sediment Sukhothai Muang Bung Noi flooded Muang Nong Huai Raab flooded

3-17 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report 3.4. The Pilot Project

3.4.1. Objective of the Pilot Project The implementation of this pilot project was designed to support RID’s rehabilitation works for flood recovery, prevention and improvement of irrigation facilities in the Chao Phraya River basin. The support was planned as technical assistance for the design and construction for the reinforcement of irrigation facilities through pilot implementation in cooperation with RID.

3.4.2. First Selection of the Pilot Project Projects initially considered for the pilot project can be categorized into the following three groups. Their project content, current situation and the rationale for the first selection are explained below. (Refer to Table 3.4.1)

i) Flood Recovery and Prevention Projects being implemented by RID

ii) Flood Recovery and Improvement Projects requested by RID for JICA Support

iii) Projects Assisted by Japan in the Past

(1) Flood Recovery and Prevention Projects being implemented by RID As explained above, projects for emergency flood recovery and prevention that have been identified and implemented by RID have focused on rural and urban residential areas as well as industrial and commercial areas in and around cities. Therefore, most projects are related to social and industrial infrastructures, such as rehabilitation and reconstruction of roads and bridges, dredging of rivers and canals, heightening of river and canal banks with soil embankment or concrete floodwall, drainage regulators, and procurement and distribution of drainage pumps.

These projects were initially considered as possible candidates for the pilot project, however it was realized that they had been implemented in line with government emergency recovery and prevention plans and schedule at the cabinet council level. Therefore, they were excluded from the list of candidates for the pilot project.

(2) Flood Recovery and Improvement Projects requested by RID for JICA Support In response to the inquiry by the Project Team, RID presented the following projects for possible JICA support in the agriculture sector.

i) Naresuan Dam O&M Project: This irrigation system built in 1982 is located in Phitsanulok Province under RID Regional Office 3 in the middle Chao Phraya River basin. Irrigation water is taken from the Naresuan barrage built on the Nan River. The project covers an irrigation service area of 91,000 rai (=14,560 ha) which spreads on the left bank of the Nan River down to the Kwai Noi River, a tributary of the Nan River.

During the 2011 flood, irrigation facilities such as canal banks, roads and drainage culverts were damaged. The central part of the irrigation area, where natural drain flows from the north to the south, is inundated every year. Moreover, in April 2012, one of five radial gates at Naresuan barrage was washed away. Upon the request of RID, the Project Team conducted a field visit and held meetings and discussions with the O&M project office on 18 May 2012.

Through the discussions, it was clarified that small repair and rehabilitation of canal facilities had been mostly completed. The issues of frequent inundation of the central lowland in the project area will need further study in the future in view of drainage improvement. The radial gate that had

JICA 3-18 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report been washed away in April was under fabrication in the workshop.

As a result, the Project Team concluded that there was no particular unrepaired structure suitable for the pilot project.

ii) Phlai Chumphon O&M Project: This irrigation system, also built in 1985, is located in Phitsanulok Province under RID Regional Office 3 in the middle Chao Phraya River basin. Irrigation water is taken from Naresuan barrage, similar to the Naresuan Dam O&M Project described above. The project covers an irrigation service area of 218,000 rai (=34,880 ha) which lies between the Nan River and the Yom River, an area which suffers from frequent flooding.

The feasibility study for the improvement of irrigation and drainage facilities was made in 2007. The detailed design was completed and approved by RID last year, in 2011. Upon the request of RID, the Project Team conducted a field visit and held meetings and discussions with the O&M project office in May and June 2012. Among 98 sub-projects in the improvement plan, two priority sub-projects, namely construction of outlet drainage structures on the main canal and construction of drainage pumping stations, were discussed and studied. (Refer to Table 3.5.1 for the list of 98 sub-projects)

As a result and as detailed below, the construction of the main canal outlet drainage structure was selected as the pilot project to be supported by the Project Team.

2012/5/28, Phlai Chumphon, proposed site for 2012/8/9, Phlai Chumphon, proposed site for outlet drainage pumping station along drainage canal and drainage structure at C-1 main canal. dike. Yom river is just 50 m away on right side.

(3) Projects Assisted by Japan in the Past Projects assisted by Japan were also reviewed for identifying potential candidates for the pilot project. The flood damage and current situation of these projects are described earlier in this chapter.

i) Chao Phraya Irrigation Project (ALRO): Among 10 pumping irrigation blocks, 5 blocks are operated by TAOs while 5 other blocks are managed by individual farmers using small portable pumps due to the deterioration of project-provided pumps. Flood damage in 2011 was mainly for polder dikes built in 1982-1987. However, it is judged that there is no particular irrigation facility suitable for the pilot project to be carried out by this Project Team.

ii) Pasak Irrigation Project (RID): Flood damage in 2011 was minimal because of its hilly topographic condition. Therefore, it was decided that there is no particular damaged irrigation facility to be urgently repaired with the support of this Project Team.

3-19 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report iii) SSIP / SSIRP (RID): It is generally observed that most sub-project sites are located in hilly and mountainous areas, and not in the lowland areas which is the focus of this Project Team. Most sub-projects have been transferred to respective TAOs. According to the results of the inventory survey for the 106 sub-projects listed under SSIRP within the study area, structural damage was observed at many sub-projects but they are mostly due to the operation of many years not due to the flood in 2011, except a few cases. Four sub-projects with river weir structure were found seriously damaged that will need reconstruction. They are either repaired or underway for investigation and survey, thus the team concluded that there is no possible facility to be supported as a pilot project by this JICA project.

iv) LSIFP (DOF): As the project area for Bung Boraped Swamp under LSIFP is situated right beside the Chao Phraya River in Nakhon Sawan Province, flood damage in 2011 was serious for many facilities. Dredging of the swamp is being executed with a target volume of 4.0 million m3. Various equipment such as for research, extension, facility operation, dredging and office use was also seriously damaged. However, although the need and demand for equipment support are high, equipment support would not be appropriate for pilot implementation under this JICA project.

v) SSIFP (DOF): It was observed that 91 sub-project sites in the study area were inundated mostly due to their lowland locations. Dredging of such small swamps / ponds will be needed to restore their storage capacity. However, such work would not be suitable for the pilot project under this JICA project as they have been operated by their respective TAOs.

(4) First Selection of the Pilot Project

The first selection of the pilot project was made by considering the following criteria;

i) To support flood recovery and prevention works in the agriculture sector.

ii) To be able to implement within the JICA project period up to May 2013.

iii) To correspond to the requests from the C/P agencies, particularly RID.

Current conditions, issues and necessity of projects / project groups were studied and assessed for the selection. The projects / project groups being implemented by RID under the emergency recovery and prevention program were excluded. Project suitability, as pilot implementation by the Project Team in terms of study concept, was also taken into consideration.

As a result of this review, the improvement of the Phlai Chumphon O&M Project in Phitsanulok Province was identified as a potential pilot project. Subsequently, additional field work was conducted, and detailed discussions were held between the Project Team and the Phlai Chumphon O&M Project office as described in the next section.

JICA 3-20 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report Table 3.4.1 Candidates for Pilot Project Project category / group Description Current status / Flood damage Actions taken For JICA support Remark by study team Necessity Possible for Tentati pilot project ve cost

1. RID flood re cove ry & prote ction work (nation-wide ) Progress as of June 30, 2012 1) Batch-1 (555 sites) 86% 2) Batch-2 (955 sites) 80% For the recovery and 3) Batch-3 (481 sites) 79% protection of urban and rural 4) Emergency SCWRM (129 19% Conducted site visit on residential and industrial areas sites) May 16-20 & follow- None ------5) Additional No.1 (119 sites) - up the progress 6) Additional No.2 (11 sites) Included 2 dam projects & - program is up to year 2019 7) Aditional No.3 (3 sites) To suppliment SCWRM above -

2. RID's re que st for JICA support Flood recovery 1) Naresuan Dam O&M Project Gravity irrigation system for Budget for equipment (radial gate, wire, Conducted site visit None ------91,000 rai taking water at electrical) was approved then procurement and discussion on May Naresuan Dam from Nam is underway. 18 River at Phitsanulok 2) Phlai Chumphon O&M Project Gravity irrigation system for Seeking JICA support for 1) main canal Conducted site visit & Very high Priority 1 is 40 million D/D was made 218,000 rai taking water at spillway, 2) drainage pumping station. discussion on May, spillway, Priority 2 baht by RID in 2011. Naresuan Dam at Phitsanulok June & July is drainage pumping station

3. Japan assiste d proje cts in the past Flood damage 1) Chao Phya Irrigated Project Polder dike & 10 pump 4 blocks were protected during flood but 6 Conducted site visit on None ------(ALRO) stations for 10,000 ha irrigation were totally inundated. 5 pump stations are May 10 at Ayutthaya operational. 2) Pasak Irrigation Project (RID) Pump irrigation system for Not flooded nor damage to facilities / Conducted site visit on None ------67,356 rai at Sara Buri structures. May 16 3) SSIP / SSIRP (RID) 106 sites in the study area Damage depends on location. Most sites Conducted site visit on To clarify ------Wait for result of under SSIRP, Sites of SSIP are located at hilly area free from flood. May 16-20, & after inventory. are not clarified. inventory of 106 sites inventory is on-going. 4) LSIFP (DOF) Bung Boraped Swamp at Totally inundated, need dredging, rehab of Conducted site visit on High for Equipment supply is --- Obtained the Nakhon Sawan facilities, ponds, roads & equipment. May 25 equipment not suitable to pilot equipment list Recovery is in progress but equipment supply project recovery not yet. 5) SSIFP (DOF) 49 small swamps in the study Totally inundated with much sedimentation Conducted site visit on None --- area to ponds managed by TAOs May 25

3.4.3. Final Selection of the Pilot Project (1) Overview of the Phlai Chumphon Irrigation System Improvement Project General features: The Phlai Chumphon irrigation system, built 30 years ago, is located in Phitsanulok Province under RID Regional Office 3 in the middle Chao Phraya River basin with an irrigation service area of 218,000 rai (34,880 ha). This area, together with two interconnected irrigation systems, namely the Dongsethi and Tabua O&M Projects, covers a total irrigation services area of 572,400 rai (92,000 ha), and is one of the largest irrigated agricultural areas in the country. The project area is situated in lowland between the Nan River and the Yom River where floods occur frequently every year. Both the Nan River and the Yom River are among the four biggest tributaries of the Chao Phraya River. The Nan River is frequently flooded and causes extensive damage to the urban areas of Phitsanulok. The Yom River also floods between August and October every year to the urban areas of Sukhothai and the surrounding agricultural land. (Refer to Figure 3.5.1)

Irrigation system: Irrigation water with design capacity of 141.68 m3/sec is diverted from the Nan River at Naresuan barrage. The main canal for the Phlai Chumphon irrigation system extends to the Dongsethi and Tabua irrigation systems, which are interconnected immediately downstream of the Phlai Chumphon irrigation system. This 80 km-long main canal system has regulators for water distribution control at six places in the main canal, but canal outlet drainages structures are attached at only two places, namely at the upper-reach and the canal end.

Drainage system: The drainage system of the irrigation service area is very poor due to its topography. The area borders on the Yom River and the old Yom River, thus drainage is made through drainage gates directly into the rivers. However, water levels of both rivers are so high during the wet season that drainage from the irrigation area becomes difficult and consequently standing crops and farmland are

3-21 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report damaged by long periods of inundation. Currently, there exist only two pumping stations built in 2006 and 2007 facing onto the old Yom River.

Flood damage and recovery: In the 2011 flood, this area between the Yom River and the Nan River was the most damaged area in the middle Chao Phraya River area. It has been reported that 120,400 rai (19,200 ha) of farmland, or about 55% of the total irrigation service area, were inundated for three months from July to September. Wet season paddy of 16,920 rai (2,700 ha) were totally lost due to inundation. Presently in this area, many works for flood recovery and prevention have been implemented, such as repair and heightening of river banks, repair of village roads and bridges, dredging of rivers and canals, and repair of social infrastructures.

Issues and countermeasures: Major issues on this irrigation system, including the surrounding area, can be summarized as: 1) shortage of irrigation water in the dry season, 2) poor drainage condition in the wet season in half of the project area because it is low-lying, and 3) frequent flood damage in the Phitsanulok area which is situated by the Nan River downstream from the Naresuan barrage. On the other hand, countermeasures to solve these issues, according to the detailed design approved by RID, are: 1) improvement of irrigation canals with concrete lining and canal structures, 2) construction of drainage pumping stations along the Yom River and river bank improvement, and 3) construction of outlet drainages structures on the main canal to use as a floodway or bypass canal for the prevention of flooding in the Phitsanulok area. Particularly for 3) above, during heavy floods, the Nan River water is diverted into the main canal at Naresuan barrage as an emergency measure to reduce river discharge to the Phitsanulok urban areas. The diverted water is inevitably discharged to the irrigation area due to the lack of outlet drainage structures on the main canal, and consequently farmland, standing paddy, farmers’ houses and rural infrastructures are damaged. As such damage increases, induced by climate change and farmers’ claims in recent years particularly in the 2011 flood, construction of outlet drainage structures on the main canal has become a strong and serious social demand.

Phlai Chumphon Irrigation System Improvement Project: The feasibility study for the improvement of the Phlai Chumphon irrigation system was conducted by Thai consultants in 2006 – 2007. The detailed design was completed and approved by RID in July 2011. The improvement project is composed of 98 sub-projects, and as a result of the experience of the 2011 flood, construction of outlet drainage structures has become priority. However, its budget has not been secured because of the large number of works for emergency recovery and prevention being implemented throughout the country by the government.

Priority sub-projects: Among 98 sub-projects for improvement in the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) (2011/12 – 2016/17), 5 sub-projects, which are urgently required for flood recovery, have had their budget approved for 2012/13 implementation. Among others, according to the O&M project office and RID approval documents, two categories, namely 1) construction of outlet drainage structures for the safety of the main canal as well as prevention of flooding in the Phitsanulok urban area, and 2) construction of drainage pumping stations for the improvement of drainage conditions along the Yom River, are considered priority. Therefore, these two types of sub-projects were selected for further study and final selection of the pilot project.

JICA 3-22 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report i) Candidate 1: Construction of outlet drainage structures for flood waterway on the main canal (2 places)

ii) Candidate 2: Construction of drainage pumping stations for inundation prevention along the Yom River (15 places) (2) Candidate 1: Construction of Outlet Drainage Structures on the Main Canal During floods, the main canal of the Phlai Chumphon irrigation system is often used as a bypass canal of the Nan River to prevent flooding in Phitsanulok city. Although this happens only in cases of emergency, and the flood water comes into the main canal, diverted water is discharged to the project area through lateral canals resulting in serious inundation and damage in lower areas along the Yom River, as explained above.

The purpose of constructing outlet drainage structures is to allow the main canal to be used safely as a floodway / bypass canal when the Nan River is severely flooded. Diverted flood water will be conveyed downstream by the main canal then spilled back into the Nan River at a point downstream of the Phitsanulok urban area.

According to the improvement project, two outlet drainage structures are planned and the upper one (at km 56+151) is priority. Therefore, the upper outlet drainage structure is selected as candidate 1 for the pilot project. (Refer to Figure 3.4.2)

i) New outlet drainage structure at km 56+151 on C-1 main canal, estimated project cost = 39.5 million baht. To drain to DR 15.8.

ii) New outlet drainage structure at km 63+240 on C-1 main canal, estimated project cost = 37.8 million baht. To drain to DR 2.8.

The pilot project for the selected outlet drainage structure (at km 56+151) for new construction are composed of a vertical gate type outlet drainage structure (3 sets of steel roller gates) with a design discharge of 49.50 m3/sec, concrete culvert box, and protection work.

(3) Candidate 2: Construction of Drainage Pumping Stations along the Yom River Drainage improvement is a long-term issue for the Phlai Chumphon irrigation system (irrigation service area of 218,000 rai or 34,880 ha) that is characterized by lowland geography with widespread inundation when there is heavy rain. The purpose of the construction of drainage pumping stations is to drain inundated water mechanically to the Yom River and the old Yom River. The pumping stations are located at the end of the lateral drainage canals along these rivers.

According to the improvement plan, 15 pumping stations have been planned for new construction. Among them, the one with highest priority (No. 11 Khlong Go regulator and pumping station) is selected as candidate 2 for the pilot project. The 15 pumping stations are as listed below. (Refer to Figure 3.5.2) The pilot project for the selected drainage pumping station (No. 11 Khlong Go regulator and pumping station) will consist of rehabilitation of an existing drainage gate (steel slide gate) and new construction of a pumping station. The type of pump is a water submerged pump for three sets with a diameter of 800 mm. There is a suction pit but no discharge pit. An extension of the electric transmission line from the existing line is needed.

3-23 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report (4) Final Selection of the Pilot Project The pilot project was finally selected among two candidate projects, i.e. the construction of outlet drainage structure and the construction of drainage pumping station, taking into consideration the following factors;

i) Appropriateness to agriculture sector ii) Applicability to other irrigation systems iii) Viability in terms of construction period iv) Necessity of JICA support in view of urgency v) Priority by Phlai Chumphon O&M Project

i) Appropriateness to agriculture sector: The projects currently implemented by RID for flood recovery and prevention have focused on the social infrastructure, particularly for the protection of rural and urban residential areas as well as commercial and industrial areas. Hence, projects for the recovery of agricultural production as well as for the prevention of flood damage in the agriculture sector through rehabilitation and improvement of irrigation facilities have not been observed.

Considering the above, both candidates are appropriate to agriculture sector as they could bring benefits through the recovery of agricultural production and/or reduction of flood damage to crops and irrigation facilities.

ii) Applicability to other irrigation systems: The concept of candidate 1 “the construction of outlet drainage structures on the main canal” is to use the irrigation canal as a floodway. In other words, an irrigation system can be used not only as agricultural infrastructure to supply water for irrigation, but also as social infrastructure to prevent flooding in the surrounding residential areas. In the case of Phlai Chumphon where the Phitsanulok city area is spread out, the need to use the main canal of the irrigation system as floodways of the Nan River becomes a high social demand. In planning such floodways, discharge capacity, structure type and locations of outlet drainage structures are the key engineering points that need to be properly designed.

The above concept for candidate 1 could be applied both to the neighboring irrigation systems and to those systems in the middle Chao Phraya River basin where similar issues are observed. This is particularly so, due to frequent unusual rainfall patterns induced by climate change. Moreover, this can be a model for future irrigation development together with flood prevention measures for the Yom River, where irrigation development has not yet progressed and areas that experience severe flooding, such as Sukhothai city, are situated. This measure would be named the “flood waterway model for irrigation system”.

The concept of candidate 2, “the construction of drainage pumping stations”, is to drain inundated flood water by using pumps. The current drainage system in this area is to drain flood water naturally through small drainage gates built 30 years ago along the Yom River, but natural drainage does not function well in the wet season because of high water levels of the Yom River. In the 2011 flood, almost 50% of the project area was inundated for three months, causing huge losses of standing paddy of about 2,700 ha.

Candidate 2 could be executed as a pilot implementation of 15 drainage pumping stations to be constructed for drainage improvement. In addition, this could be a model of inundation prevention for irrigation systems in the middle to lower Chao Phraya River basin. This would be named the “inundation prevention model for irrigation system”. JICA 3-24 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

In conclusion, both candidates could be applied to other areas for the improvement of existing systems as well as for new development. However, it is further evaluated that candidate 1 would be more suitable to this JICA project because it has more potential for replication.

iii) Viability in terms of construction period: Both candidate projects could be completed within this JICA project period up to May 2013. Six months in the dry season, possibly from November to April, could be secured for construction, provided that the work is done by private contractors. However, there will be some risks, critical to the construction period, as pointed out below, and such risks will be properly analyzed and reviewed.

For candidate 1, civil work volume is estimated at 40,000 m3 for earth work and 2,600 m3 for concrete work according to the detailed design. Major work including the cofferdam and gate fabrication and installation will require about 4 - 5 months. The steel roller gate can be fabricated in Phitsanulok but this is subject to confirmation.

For candidate 2, the work consists of civil work and pump mechanical work. Major work including the cofferdam will require about 4 – 5 months as above. The critical factor will be the manufacture of pumps which may need to be procured from other countries.

iv) Necessity of JICA support in view of urgency: According to RID, both candidate projects are considered high priority in terms of urgency for flood reduction and prevention. The project area is located in the middle Chao Phraya River basin, right in the central area of this JICA project.

Therefore, in terms of the purpose and necessity of this JICA project support, both projects would be equally highly prioritized.

v) Priority by Phlai Chumphon O&M Project and RID: Priority given by the Phlai Chumphon O&M Project and RID was also taken into consideration. According to the six-year Medium- Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) (2011/12 – 2016/17) for the improvement of the Phlai Chumphon Irrigation System, candidate 1 “the construction of outlet drainage structure on the main canal” is ranked higher in priority than candidate 2 “the construction of drainage pumping station.”

The result of the priority study described above is summarized in the table below. From this, it was proposed that candidate 1 “the construction of outlet drainage structure on the main canal” of the Phlai Chumphon irrigation system be the first priority for the pilot project to be implemented by the Project Team.

Table 3.4.2 Results of Priority Study for Selection of Pilot Project

Criteria 1. Construction of outlet 2. Construction of drainage drainage structure pumping station 1) Appropriateness to agriculture sector ◎ ◎ 2) Applicability to other irrigation systems ◎ ○ 3) Viability in terms of construction period ◎ ○ 4) Necessity of JICA support in view of urgency ◎ ○ 5) Priority by Phlai Chumphon O&M Project ◎ ○

3-25 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

2012/8/9, Phlai Chumphon, proposed site for outlet 2012/8/9, Phlai Chumphon, natural drain (DR 15.8) drainage structure at km 56+151 at C-1 main canal to discharge water from proposed outlet drainage structure.

3.4.4. Design of the Pilot Project (1) Overview of the Pilot Project

1) General

For the Pilot Project of this component, one of the 98 sub-projects under the Improvement of Phlai Chumphon O & M Project, “Construction of Outlet Drainage Structure on Main Canal C-1” was selected taking into account the urgency and importance of the project, the strong request by RID for assistance, as well as its suitability for the purpose of the present project. The pilot project was designed to demonstrate how a drainage function could be added into the irrigation canal. In other words, the pilot project will be an example of how an irrigation system can be utilized not only to provide water for irrigated agriculture but also to protect neighboring areas during peak flood times through using the facility as social infrastructure, i.e. drainage. Due to urbanization, the city of Phitsanulok is expanding along the Nan River. Therefore there is a need to improve the drainage function of the Phlai Chumphon irrigation system. If the system is to have a dual purpose of irrigation and drainage, an outlet drainage structure needs to be constructed to secure the safety of the irrigation canal. When planning the outlet drainage structure, the most important design-related issues are location, scale and the discharge amount . (Refer toAppendix I-C-3 for the details of the design)

2) Location of the facility

The detailed design works for the construction of the outlet drainage structure on the main canal C-1 was prepared by RID. Out of the two outlet drainage structures, the upper stream outlet drainage structure, as specified below, was reviewed.

Km 56+151.898: Located at about the 56 km point of C-1 main canal extending from the Naresuan intake to the south along the Nan River

3) Scale of facility and drainage capacity As per the detailed design made by RID, the present C-1 main canal is an earthen canal but is planned to be concrete-lined in the near future. So, the detailed design was made on the assumption that the main canal has been improved and is already concrete-lined. Accordingly, if the pilot project was implemented prior to the concrete-lining improvement, it would be necessary to review the capacity of the outlet drainage structure on the basis of the present earthen canal condition.

JICA 3-26 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

For the capacity of outlet drainage, the plan assumed that half each of the maximum irrigation supply (90 cum/s, present/after improvement) would be drained at two outlets: 50% would be drained at the upstream outlet and the remaining 50% would flow down through the main canal. In order to drain out all the remaining 50% at the downstream outlet, it would, theoretically, be necessary to block the flow by having agate in the canal to prevent the water from flowing downstream. Nevertheless, no design for a closure gate was included in the detailed design works for the downstream outlet drainage structure.

Similar to RID’s practice, the scope of work for this pilot project did not include construction, but covers the design and cost estimate on the outlet drainage structure..

The design outlet drainage discharge by RID is 50% of the flow capacity of the main canal (90 cum/s) and an additional 10% should be added as an allowance.

Design outlet drainage discharge = 90.0 x 0.5 x (1.0+0.1) = 49.5 cum/s

3-27 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Main Canal (C-1) ⇒ Outlet Drainage Structure ⇒ Drainage Canal DR.15.8

PLAN of Outlet Drainage Structure

Outlet Drainage Structure

Drainage Canal at DR. 15.8

Phlai Chumphon Main Canal (C-1)

PROFILE of Outlet Drainage Structure

Drainage Canal at DR. 15.8

JICA 3-28 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

(2) Review of RID’s Detailed Design RID’s design for the outlet drainage structure assumed that the main Phlai Chumphon canal would be concrete lined. Therefore, it was necessary to examine the drainage capacity for the scenario of the earthen and un-lined canal as well. Furthermore, there are plans to increase the intake amount at Naresuan by 10 cum/s after the improvement of Phlai Chumphon main canal by concrete lining. However, the increased amount will affect only the upstream section from the beginning to the 25 km point, so there will be no change in the required capacity in the lower stream portion. The planned water requirement, the planned canal capacity as well as the existing capacity are as presented in the following table.

Phlai Chumphon Main Canal Capacity (c u m / s) Canal Interval Point Canal Plan(ConcreteLining) Existing Outlet Beginning km. ～ Ending km. Requirement Available Capacity Concept 0+0.000 ～ 10+608 150.532 153.351 > 140 10+608 ～ 24+920 128.375 152.516 > 140 24+920 ～ 40+760 102.298 137.214 = 100 40+760 ～ 52+63.628 90.000 94.958 = 90 52+63.628 ～ 58+718.042 90.000 93.561 = 90 km. 56+151.898 (Proposed Drainage) 90.000 93.561 = 90 ⇒49.5cum/s 58+718.042 ～ 63+360 60.730 93.863 = 60 km. 63+240.740 (Proposed Drainage) 60.730 93.863 = 60 ⇒49.5cum/s 63+360 ～ 72+351.008 60.730 136.896 = 60 72+351.008 ～ 79+873.186 60.730 127.571 = 60

(3) Hydraulic Design （km. 56+151.898: Outlet Drainage Structure） 1) General In the rehabilitation works of the Phlai Chumphon canal by RID Regional Office 3, the outlet drainage structure works were planned and detailed designs were completed for construction.

The hydraulic conditions of the outlet drainage structure are as follows:

Top elevation of wall at gate portion EL. 44.103 m Top elevation of canal bank EL. 43.303 m Water level at km 56+151.898 Main Canal (C-1) WL. 42.603 m Water level of 2011 flood in drainage canal DR. 15.8 HWL. 41.880 m Discharge capacity in outlet drainage structure 49.5 cum/sec (Based on RID Design Criteria for Survey-Design of the Improvement of Phlai Chumphon O&M Project)

2) Discharge sections of Irrigation canal at Station 56 + 151.898 (km. 56+100)

i) RID: Concrete lining Cross Section (km. 56+100 Upstream of Outlet Drainage Structure) Depth of flow H=4.603m (Discharge 90.000 cum/s), Bottom width B=15.000m, Side slope m=1:2.0, Bed slope I=1/20,000, Roughness coefficient n=0.018 (Concrete lining), Top of bank EL=44.106m,

3-29 RID

JICA P The

Discha

r oject Free board=EL 44.106- WL 42.606 = 1.5m f or Flood r

eQ=9.6 u/ 000cms------O.K. cum/s cum/s >90.000 ge=93.561 Q Improvement of Phlai Chumphon O&M Project Main Canal C-1 · km 56 + 100 UNIFLOW of Planned Canal Section C ounte

Discharge (m3/s)Ｑ＝ 93.561 Area of Cross (m2)Ａ＝ 111.320

Ｉ＝ Wetted PerimeterＳ＝ (m) r Bed Slope (1/I) 20000.0 35.572 mea

Roughness Coef.ｎ＝ 0.018 Hydraulic RadiusＲ＝ (m) 3.129 s u

Bottom Width (m)Ｂ＝ 15.000 Velocity (m/s) Ｖ＝ 0.840 r e s

ｍ＝ Ｈ＝ f Side Slope 2.000 Depth of Flow (m) 4.600 o r Thailand Trial Start Depth H1= 3.000 Diff. (Q-q) GS= 0.00000

Bottom ElevationEl= (m)38.006 Critical Depth(m) Hc=1.478

Water Surface Wl=(m) 42.606 Estm. Hc A gricultu 3-30 FX1= 0.00000 C1= 19.56 C2= -19.26 r lSecto al FX2= 1941.10 Gs= 0.00000 r Final Repor Final

PLAN SECTION t The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report ii) Existing Un-lined Survey Cross Section (Upstream of Outlet Drainage Structure) Required discharge= 90.000 cum/s, Roughness coefficient n=0.035 (Un-lined), Bed slope I=1/20,000, Bottom elevation EL=37.300m, Top of bank EL=43.600m

Results, discharge Q=90.000 cum/s ⇒ Depth of flow H=5.993m, Water surface WL=43.293m, Free board fb=EL 43.600m – WL 43.293m = 0.307m > 0.0m----O.K.

3-31 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

3) Discharge Sections of Drainage canal at DR. 15.8 (Downstream Water Surface EL. of Outlet Drainage Structure)

Drainage Canal Center WL.37.919 Side 3.80m Slope 1:2.0

EL.34.119 n=0.12 15.00 m Bed Slope = 1/500

Drainage canal DR.15.8

Depth WL Area Premeter Slope n Velo city Diachrge Remark m in m sq.m m 1 / 500 0.12 m / sec cum/sec 0.000 34.119 0.000 15.000 0.002 0.12 0.000 0.000 0.500 34.619 8.000 17.236 0.002 0.12 0.223 1.787 1.000 35.119 17.000 19.472 0.002 0.12 0.340 5.787 1.500 35.619 27.000 21.708 0.002 0.12 0.431 11.637 2.000 36.119 38.000 23.944 0.002 0.12 0.507 19.268 2.500 36.619 50.000 26.180 0.002 0.12 0.574 28.684 3.000 37.119 63.000 28.416 0.002 0.12 0.634 39.920 3.500 37.619 77.000 30.652 0.002 0.12 0.689 53.028 3.800 37.919 85.880 31.994 0.0002 0.12 0.720 61.817 Design WL37.919 4.000 38.119 92.000 32.889 0.002 0.12 0.74068.069 4.500 38.619 108.000 35.125 0.002 0.12 0.788 85.107 5.000 39.119 125.000 37.361 0.002 0.12 0.834 104.209 5.173 39.119 131.119 38.135 0.002 0.12 0.849 111.317 Design+49.5cum/s 5.500 39.619 143.000 39.597 0.002 0.12 0.877 125.445 6.000 40.119 163.071 50.833 0.002 0.12 0.811 132.190 6.500 40.619 187.571 53.069 0.002 0.12 0.865 162.200 7.000 41.119 213.071 55.305 0.002 0.12 0.916 195.148 7.500 41.619 239.571 57.541 0.002 0.12 0.965 231.068 7.761 41.880 253.801 58.708 0.002 0.12 0.989 251.010 2011 Max 8.000 42.119 267.071 59.777 0.002 0.12 1.011 269.995 8.367 42.619 287.8958 61.419 0.002 0.12 1.044300.510 2011Max.+49.5cum/s 8.500 42.619 295.571 62.013 0.002 0.12 1.055 311.971 9.000 43.119 325.071 64.249 0.002 0.12 1.098 357.042 9.381 43.500 348.221 65.953 0.002 0.12 1.130 393.492 Bank Top

Drainage Canal Discharge and Water Level (Downstream Water Surface EL. of Outlet Drainage)

[1] Drainage Design + 49.5 = WL. 37.919m (Q=61.817 cum/s) + 49.5 cum/s = 111.317 cum/s ⇒WL. 39.119m WL. 37.919 m is almost the same as the outlet flume level of the outlet drainage structure. Therefore, there will be no problems regarding the outlet discharge capacity from the outlet drainage structure.

WL. 39.119 m is lower than the center elevation of the box culvert. This will affect the open flow water level in the box culvert, and will raise the water level a little, but will not affect the capacity of 49.5 cum/s.

[2] Drainage Canal 2011 Max + 49.5 = WL. 41.88m (Q=251.010 cum/s) + 49.5 cum/s = 300.510 cum/s ⇒WL. 42.619m When water levels at the drainage canal are either at the highest levels of the 2011 flood or at the higher level caused by the additional discharge of 49.5 cum/s, they are higher than the inside top

JICA 3-32 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report elevation (EL. 41.518m) of the box culvert. Therefore, the water level in the main canal (concrete- lined and WL. 42.603m – 90 cum/s) is lower than the water level of the drainage canal (WL. 42.619m). So not only will 49.5 m3/s not be able to flow down, but an adverse flow may also occur resulting in the outlet gate to close fully, although the discharge itself is rather limited. By contrast, for the present un-lined main canal with WL. 43.293m (90 cum/s), the water level difference between the drainage canal and the main canal is 0.674m, allowing 49.5 cum/s to flow down.

3-33 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

4) Hydraulic Estimation for Inlet of Outlet Drainage Structure (Function as Weir)

JICA 3-34 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

5) Confirmation of Outlet Drainage Structure Capacity

Re sult of Hydraulics Estimation for Confirmation of Outle t Drainage Structure Capacity

Main Canal Main Canal WL Main Canal WL Drainage Canal Drainage Canal Case WL Upstream WL. WL Condition (90cum/s) (Outlet 45.9cum/s) WL Discharge

a-1) Concrete Lining WL.42.603 m >> OK WL.41.744 m WL.42.603 m >> OK WL.39.119 m 111.3 cum/s

a-2) Concrete Lining WL.42.603 m >> OK WL.41.744 m WL.42.603 m << NG WL.42.619 m 300.5 cum/s

b-1) Exis ting WL.43.293 m >> OK WL.41.744 m WL.43.293 m >> OK WL.39.119 m 111.3 cum/s

b-2) Exis ting WL.43.293 m >> OK WL.41.744 m WL.43.293 m > OK WL.42.619 m 300.5 cum/s Case *-1) : Design Water Level on Drainage Canal = Design Flood Discharge 61.817cum/s + Outlet Discharge Case *-2) : 2011Max. Water Level on Drainage Canal = 2011Max. Discharge 251.010cum/s + Outlet Discharge

RID’s detailed designs correspond to Case a-1), which does not take into consideration the discharge from the outlet drainage structure at Drainage Canal DR. 15.8.

PLAN of Outlet Drainage Structure

Drainage Canal at DR. 15.8

Main Canal (C-1) ⇒ Outlet Drainage Structure ⇒ Drainage Canal DR.15.8

PROFILE of Outlet Drainage Structure

Drainage Canal at DR. 15.8

3-35 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

6) Recommendations for the Hydraulic Design Countermeasures for Outlet Drainage Structure based on Hydraulic Review

Item Findings Countermeasures 1. Hydraulic (1) Discharge at gate is considered as (1) The formula in the RID Design Criteria calculation submerged flow and is calculated by using should be corrected as below: at gate the submerged flow formula. This formula From; 2*g0.5 = 6.264 was taken from the RID Design Criteria for To: (2*)0.5 = 4.427 the Survey-Design of the Improvement of However, there is a need to establish an Phlai Chumphon O&M Project. The O&M standard through observation of formula, however, seems to be misprinted discharges following the completion of and the discharge appears to be too high construction works. This will be done by (Too small head loss). measuring and observing the relationship between the upstream water level, gate openings, the downstream water level and discharge quantities.

(2) Regarding the computation of flow (2) The flow capacity can be confirmed by capacity, the water level at the drainage canal taking into consideration the water level at DR 15.8 downstream is not considered in the lower stream drainage canal and the examining the outlet drainage discharge. outlet drainage discharge. Accordingly, for the design drainage water level, the effect by the 49.5 cum/s must be added, even in the case where the maximum level reached by the 2011 flood is used..

2. Hydraulic (1) Free flow is prevailing in the box culvert (1) It is necessary to prove that the outlet water calculation and a uniform flow can be calculated by level would not be lower than that of the between inlet adjusting for critical depth. This calculation designed lower stream, by calculating the head and outlet of will determine the bed slope. However, if losses from the inlet down to the lower outlet the water level of the outlet reaches levels stream based on the designed upstream water drainage as high as during the 2011 flood, there will level and the design discharge. structure be a submerged flow in the box culvert. There has been no examination of this possibility. 3. Baffle (1) The design of the baffle apron drops is (1) In case the water level downstream is raised, apron drops adequately done based on the RID Design dissipation effects by water cushion can be Criteria, provided that the dissipation effect expected and there is no need for provision of by this baffle can be obtained only when dissipating facility for the higher water level the water level in lower stream is lower. downstream. If low water level at DR 15.8 in the dry season is assumed, the desired water level can be secured by adjusting the gate facility, which can be used as a countermeasure. (2) It is possible that the right side bank slope (2) To ensure protection against scouring, filter of the connecting drainage canal might be mats should be placed on the side slope and scoured by the jet flow of the drained water. canal bed of the connecting canal on which As a protection measure, the riprap as designed gabion mattress will be placed. Through an on-site at present may be insufficient. survey, it was confirmed that the rock/stone block is 50 cm and there is no problem to withstand the velocity. It is, therefore, recommended that the filter mats be placed under the riprap.

JICA 3-36 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report (4) Design of Structure (km. 56+151.898: Outlet Drainage Structure) 1) General In the rehabilitation works of the Phlai Chumphon canal by RID Regional Office 3, two outlet drainage structure works were planned and detailed designs were completed for the construction.

The designs of the outlet drainage structures were based on RID Design Criteria for Survey-Design of the Improvement of Phlai Chumphon O&M Project.

2) Comparative Design for Box Culvert For the structural design, a stress analysis and calculations for requirements of reinforcing bars were conducted. The RID design, in general, is deemed to be on the safe side. For example, the RID design applies members with enough thickness and provides for more reinforcement bars than required. The following table shows the results of a structural computation with the reduced member thickness. It is possible to reduce the thickness of the member, but taking into account the potential uplifting force, the designed thickness shall remain unchanged.

Comparison between Original Design and Recommended Design of Box Culvert Section

Design Item Original Design Recommended Design 1. Design Criteria RID, Design Criteria for Survey-Design of Same Design Criteria as left the Improvement of Phlai Chumphon O&M Project 2. Design Section and Dimensions Whole width of culvert B = 11.50 m B = 11.50 m (same as left) Unit length of culvert L = 1.00 m L = 1.00 m (same as left) Internal width per barrel b = 3.30 m B1 = 3.30 m (same as left) Internal height h = 3.60 m H1 = 3.60 m (same as left) Covering depth of soil Hs = 1.90 m Hs = 2.10 m Thickness of top slab tt = 0.60 m tt = 0.40 m Thickness of bottom slab tb = 0.60 m tb = 0.45 m Thickness of side wall ts = 0.40 m ts = 0.40 m (same as left) Thickness of partition wall tp = 0.40 m tp = 0.40 m (same as left) 3. Bar Arrangement (dia.-spacing) (1) Main Bars Top slab upper edge joint [email protected], As = 31.42 cm2/m [email protected], As = 10.05 cm2/m upper mid. joint [email protected], As = 31.42 cm2/m [email protected], As = 20.11 cm2/m Lower [email protected], As = 15.71 cm2/m [email protected], As = 10.05 cm2/m Bottom slab lower edge joint [email protected], As = 31.42 cm2/m [email protected], As = 15.71 cm2/m lower mid. joint [email protected], As = 31.42 cm2/m [email protected], As = 15.71 cm2/m Upper [email protected], As = 15.71 cm2/m [email protected], As = 10.05 cm2/m Side wall upper outside [email protected], As = 31.42 cm2/m [email protected], As = 10.05 cm2/m lower outside [email protected], As = 31.42 cm2/m [email protected], As = 15.71 cm2/m Inside [email protected], As = 15.71 cm2/m [email protected], As = 10.05 cm2/m Partition wall both sides [email protected], As = 15.71 cm2/m [email protected], As = 10.05 cm2/m (2) Distribution bars (flow direction) [email protected], As = 10.05 cm2/m [email protected], As = 10.05 cm2/m 4. Principal Quantities Total length of box culvert: L= 86 m Total length: same as left 2 3 3 3 Concrete, fc’=210 kg/cm 1,690 m 1,350 m (-340 m , -20%) 2 2 2 Form work 2,960 m 2,870 m (-90 m , -3%) Reinforcement bar, SD30 160 ton 119 ton (-41 ton, -26%)

3-37 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report 3) Examination on Uplifting Force The RID design did not appear to include a study on the uplifting force. Depending on the site conditions, studies on uplifting force may not always be required. However, in this case, there was a possibility of an empty condition, so the following examination was made. The study concludes that safety against a potential uplifting force can be secured by the present member thickness, and that it is not necessary to modify the member thickness.

i) Case 1 Box portion: Gate closed and empty condition For case 1 when the water level at lower stream is raised, then water flows into the box freely and the water levels inside the box and ground water levels are assumed to be the same. In this case, there is no need for analyzing uplift action. Below, analyses were made for cases where the box is empty and the ground water level reaches up to the crest of the box culvert.

Case 1-1: Original Design Section (GWL---42.003m = Crest surface) 2 Concrete Section 11.5*4.8*-3.3*3.6*3 19.56 m C weight 19.56*2.4 46.944 t Uplifting force 11.5*4.60 52.9 t Required overburden (52.9*1.2-46.944)/11.5/1.8=0.799 m Design minimum Overburden 0.800 m (Minimum embankment within boundary) Weight of sand/earth 11.5*1.8*0.8 16.56 t Examination (46.944+16.56)/52.9=1.20 = 1.2 OK

Case 1-2: Recommended Design Section (GWL---42.003m = Crest surface) C weight 15.535*2.4 37.284 t Uplifting force 11.5*4.45 51.175 t Required overburden (51.175*1.2-37.284)/11.5/1.8 1.166 m Design minimum Overburden 1.000 m Weight of sand/earth 11.5*1.8*1.0 20.7 t Examination (37.284+20.7)/51.175=1.13 < 1.2 NG

ii) Case 2: Gate portion - Gate & stop log closed/empty

Under case 2, an analysis of the uplifting force is needed only when both the gate and the stop log are closed during the flood and there is no water inside the structure. The analysis was made on the case where the water level in the main canal is the same level as the ground water. (WL 43.293 m, un-lined at present and 90.0 cum/s)

Case 2-1: Original Design Section (43.293m = Main canal present highest water level) Gate portion (h) 43.293 – 39.003 + 1.00 5.29 m Section of uplifting force 5.29*12.6 66.65 t

Self-weight, invert 12.6*1.0 12.60 m2 Self-weight, side wall (0.6 + 9.8)*5.1 7.14 m2 Self-weight, pier 1.0*5.1*2 10.20 m2 2 Total m 29.94 m2 Total weight 29.94*2.4 71.856 t Weight in short Uplift force*1.2 – Self-weight 8.124 t >0 N.G. Overhanging 1.7*1.0*2*1.4 4.76 t Sand/earth on overhanging 1.7*1.0*(5.1+2.6) 13.09 t Total 17.85 t Safety factor (17.85 + 71.856)/66.65 1.35 > 1.2 OK (No problem considering the gate operation deck and lifting device) Only concrete self-weight (71.856 + 4.76)/66.65 1.15 > 1.1 OK

JICA 3-38 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report Case2-2: Proposed Design Section (Without cantilever at footing) (GWL---43.293m = Main canal present highest water level) Gate portion (h) 43.293 – 39.003 + 1.00 5.29 m Section of uplifting force 5.29*12.6 66.65 t 2 Self-weight, invert 12.6*1.0 12.60 m 2 Self-weight, side wall (0.6 + 0.8)*5.1 7.14 m 2 Self-weight, pier 1.0*5.1*2 10.20 m 2 2 Total m 29.94 m Total weight 29.92*2.4 71.856 t Weight in short Uplift force * 1.2 – Self-weight 8.124 t > 0 N.G. Overhanging 1.7*1.0*2*1.4 4.76 t Sand/earth on overhanging 1.7*1.0*(5.1 + 2.6) 13.09 t Total 17.85 t Safety factor with invert overhanging (17.85+71.865)/66.65 1.35 > 1.2 OK (In case of without overhanging, the safety factor is lower than 1.1.) Without invert overhanging 71.856/66.65 1.08 < 1.1 N.G.

iii) Case 3 Flume at immediate upstream of box, gate closed/empty condition Similar to case 1, case 3 is the scenario of free flow into the box from the lower stream making the water levels the same between the groundwater and inside the flume immediately upstream. Also in this case, there is no need for further examination on uplifting action. The following is for reference only, and calculations were made for the condition of: the groundwater levels are as shown below, empty condition in the flume and without invert overhanging, but with the vertical loads by wall friction by earth pressure on both sides. There were some safety problems with the groundwater level at the main canal water level of 43.293 (90.0 cum/s) and it is considered necessary to lower the groundwater level down to 41.88 m.

Case 3-1: Original Design Section Under case 3, the lower stream box shall be re-filled by sand and gravel so as to lower the ground water level HWL 41.88 (maximum level in the 2011 flood)

Max height (h) 41.88 – 38.003 + 0.8 4.677 m Section of uplifting force 4.677*12.6 58.9302 t Self-weight, invert 12.6*08 10.08 m2 Self-weight, side wall (0.6 + 0.8)*6.1 8.54 m2 Total 18.62 m2 Cut off 12.6*0.5*1.2 7.56 t Total weight 18.62*2.4 + 7.56*1.4 55.272 t

Weight in short Uplifting force *1.2 – Self-weight 15.44 t > 0 Weight in short Uplifting force *1.1 –Self-weight 9.55 t > 0 Overhanging 1.7*1.0*2*1.4 4.76 t San/earth on overhanging 1.7*2.0*6.1*1.0 20.74 t Total (Counter-measures) 25.5 t Safety factor (25.5 + 55.272)/58.9302 1.37 > 1.2 OK Concrete self-weight (55.272 + 4.76)/58.9302 1.02 = 1.0 OK

Case 3-2: Recommended Design Section Without invert overhanging, on both sides of side walls 50 % of vertical pressure due to friction by earth pressure shall be considered. GWL: HWL of 41.88 (maximum level in the 2011 flood)

Max height (h) 41.88 – 38.003 + 0.8 4.677 m Section of uplifting force 4.677*12.6 58.930 t Self-weight, invert 12.6*0.8 10.08 m2 Self-weight, side wall (0.6 + 0.8)*6.1 8.54 m2 Total 18.62 m2 Cut-off 12.6*0.5*1.2 7.56 t

3-39 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report Total weight 18.62*2.4 + 7.56*1.4 55.272 t

Combined force of main earth pressure 0.333*1.8*6.9^2/2 14.269 t Friction angle with wall 30*2/3 20 deg. 50 % of vertical earth pressu e 14.269*sin(20 deg.)/2 2.440 T

Weight in short Uplifting force *1.2 – (Self-weight + Vertical earth pressure) 10.564 t > 0 Weight in short Uplifting force *1.1 – (Self weight + Vertical earth Pressure) 4.671 t > 0 Weight in short Uplifting force *1.0 – (Self-weight + Vertical earth pressure) - 1.222 t < 0 Overhanging 1.7*1.0*2*1.4 4.76 t Sand/earth on overhanging 1.7*2.0*6.1*1.0 20.74 t Total (Counter-measures) 25.5 t Safety factor With overhanging (25.5 + 55.272)/58.930 1.37 > 1.2 OK Without overhanging (55.272 + 2.44*2)/58.930 1.02 = 1.0 OK

4) Recommendations on the Structural Design Recently in Japan, more emphasis is placed on workability or ease of construction when preparing a structural design. This is different from the conventional approach that gives the highest priority to the economical aspect. In this respect, RID may wish to consider adjusting their Design Standard in the future. At present, however, the RID design for this pilot project is found quite justifiable and no modifications of the Standard has been made, though recommended.

Countermeasures for the Outlet Drainage Structure based on the Structural Review

Structure Findings Countermeasures 1. Inlet transition (1)Analysis was made of a single body of (1) When applying the L-shaped structure flume structure consisting of side wall and with provision of joints on the invert, the invert. Though the thickness of the quantity of reinforcement bars can be member and the diameter and bar minimized. However, it may lead to arrangement of the reinforcement bars are dissymmetry on the left and right banks, found adequately designed, the invert width causing un-uniform bearing as well as is too wide (B/H=2.2), causing the bending horizontal forces. To this end, the single moment at the center of invert to be quite body flume structure is reasonable. large requiring more reinforcement bars.

(2) The edge of invert is designedtohave an (2) The overhanging of the invert shall be overhanging of 0.0 m – 1.70 m. If the removed, though it is a reasonable foundation could be substituted, enough countermeasure for soft foundations, which bearing capacity can be secured even could not be confirmed by a boring survey. without the overhanging. In other words, it is reasonable to have an overhanging to deal with the inadequacy of a geological investigation.

(3) The side wall is designed with a taper. (3) The length of the transition is rather However, the height of the side wall short at about 14 m only and construction varies from 0.0 m to 5.10 m, and the difficulties can be avoided if the thickness of thickness of the lower end of the side wall the side wall (from the lower to the upper also varies. These may cause difficulties in end) could be uniform, without tapering. construction works including installation of formworks, bar arrangement and assembly.

2. Operation deck (1) For the slab,the thickness of the for stop-log member, the diameter of the reinforcement bars, as well as their arrangement are adequately designed.

JICA 3-40 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report Structure Findings Countermeasures 3. Gate hoist (1) Except for the lower part of the partition section wall, the member thickness and the diameter and the arrangement are adequately designed.

(2) The edge of the invert is an overhanging (2) The overhanging of the invert should structure, but if the basic foundation could be be deleted, though it is reasonable as a substituted, enough bearing capacity could countermeasure for the soft foundation which be secured even without the overhanging. could not be determined by the boring This is similar to the case of the inlet survey. In other words, it is reasonable to transition above. have an overhanging to deal with the insufficiency of geological investigation. (3) Tapering is designed for the partition wall (3) The length of this section is short at 10 below the planned ground surface and this m only and tapering can be deleted so as to causes difficulties in construction works like secure easier construction by applying the formwork installation, reinforcement bar uniform thickness of side wall. However, arrangement and assembly. the uniform thickness may result in higher cost, so the original design is reasonable. (4) For the partition wall below the ground (4) It is possible to modify the bar surface, a considerably larger quantity of arrangement to a minimum for the lower reinforcement bars is planned when part of the partition wall, or a bar compared with the requirements from a stress arrangement based on shear force safety can point of view. be acceptable. (5) The gate is designed to be 3.0 m (W) x (5) If the freeboard can be 0.2 m only with 4.0 m (H) with a freeboard of 0.4 m with the the gate height at 3.8 m, then the designed water depth. The freeboard can be manufacturing cost of the gate could be made smaller. reduced by about 5%. However, when the RID standard is strictly followed, the freeboard is calculated to be 0.28 m and the gate height is 3.88 m, justifying the original design. 4. Inlet of box (1) See section on inlet transition (1) See section on inlet transition culvert 5. Box culvert (1)The invert and the crest are designed to (1) The loads and stress resultants may be be thicker than the required thickness of re-calculated, by applying thinner members the member, and the quantity of of invert and crest so as to minimize the reinforcement bars is also higher than the quantity of reinforcement bars needed to quantity required to withstand stress. meet the stress requirement. With these countermeasures, the quantities of concrete and reinforcement bars for the box culvert could be reduced by 20%. (It is necessary to pay due consideration to the analysis on uplift force.)

(2) A water stop is provided for the joint (2) Although it is confirmed that the portion but no dowel bar is provided. bearing capacity is adequate, the provision of dowel bars is preferred to avoid uneven subsidence.

3-41 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report Structure Findings Countermeasures 6. Outlet (1)An analysis was made on the uniformed transition flume structure consisting of side walls and invert as a single body. The member thickness of the side walls and the diameter and arrangement of reinforcement bars are adequately designed. 7. Inclined drop (1) Similar to the outlet transition, an (1) If uniform thickness is applied to the with baffle apron analysis was made on the uniform side walls, without tapering, the structure of side walls and invert. Though construction would be easier. However, as the member thickness and bar arrangement this is not economically justifiable, the are adequately designed, the inclined original design is appropriate. invert and the tapering on the side walls, make the construction work difficult.

8. Others (1) In order to make formwork installation (1) It is better to indicate the lines of lean and bar assembly easier in construction concrete. By RID practice, lean concrete is work, lean concrete (10 cm thick) is included in the construction cost estimate, required. However, no indication of lean and this is acceptable. concrete was found in the drawings.

(2) Asper the boring survey results, soft (2) This soft foundation zone is only1 m foundation with N value 3 has been thick and positioned at the bottom of the confirmed at BH-18 with the elevation 37- structure. In this case, substitution by sand 38 m. This zone is located at the bottom of and gravel is required. (Under this design structures crossed over by inlet transition review, estimation is made for excavation and gate section, so the foundation needs to and substitution.) be strengthened adequately.

(3)The slope of the side excavation is (3) By modifying the excavation slope to gentle at 1:1 and the foundation is of 1:0.5, the quantities for excavation and re- clayey nature. Accordingly, 1:0.5 slope is filling can be reduced. This is acceptable if judged to be adequately safe, even it follows the construction requirements. considering the height of excavation. (4) There is a concern that the right bank (4)Toensurethatthe structures are side slope and invert of the connecting adequately protected against scouring, filter canal may be scoured by the jet flow of mats will be placed on the side slope and the outlet drains and that the riprap work invert of the connecting canal and the as presently designed may not provide ripraps will be placed on top. Ripraps in enough protection. and around the project site is larger than 50 cm and found to be large enough and acceptable. (5) During construction work, water flow (5) Temporary closure by sheet piling and in the main canal cannot be suspended and large sand bags is necessary. In the project dry condition cannot be secured for area, temporary closure by providing coffer construction. dams in the canal is also practiced in some cases. (6)In the drawings, thereisnoindication (6) It is necessary to clearly indicate the of a clear boundary between the beginning boundary. This can be done by highlighting of the main canal and the construction site. the extent of the concrete lining and slope protection works under this project, or indicating o n l y the outlet drainage structure. Note: Bold face indicates high priority for implementation.

JICA 3-42 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report (5) Construction Plan and Schedule（km. 56+151.898: Outlet Drainage Structure

Outlet Drainage Structure Works: Detailed Construction Schedule

2012 2013 No. Description QBQ Unit November December January Feburary March Apri l Remarks Dry Season Wet Season 1. Preparation Works 1 LS Site office & camp 1 LS Mobilization 1 LS

2. Temporary Works Dewatering at inlet portion 1 LS Dewatering at outlet portion 1 LS

3 Earth Works Cleaning works by machine 7,370 sqm Stripping works by machine 2,210 cum Earth excavation by machine 11,590 cum Earth excavation by hand 1,540 cum Earth filling by machine 10,490 cum Earth filling by light weight machine 1,400 cum Gravel & sand bedding 540 cum

4. Concrete works Lean ( Leveling ) concrete 170 cum Structural concrete 2,650 cum Formworks and Support 5,620 sqm Steel bar for reinforcement D12 860 kg Steel bar for reinforcement D16 64,300 kg Steel bar for reinforcement D20 114,680 kg Steel bar for reinforcement D25 27,220 kg

5 Miscellaneous Works Hand rail works 95 m Rubber water stop A type 150 m Rubber water stop C type 160 m Elastic filer 1 cm thick 90 sqm Sealing compound 130 sqm Joint sealant 1 x 3 cm 420 m

6 Gate Works Shop drawing preparation 1 LS Steel gate 3.0m x 3.6m with Lift 3 set Bulk gate 3.00 m x 0.90 m x4 1 LS Gate and Lifting Equipment insulation 3 set Bulk gate installation 1 LS Final Painting & testing 1 LS

7 Steel Works Roof works 1 place Ladder to operation floor 2 place L-steel bar works 2 place

8 Road Works Asphalt pavement 1,180 sqm Sodding 2,160 sqm

9 Cleaning works for Handover Site cleaning 1 LS Mobilization of equipment/tools 1 LS

10 Inspection for Hand over Training for O&M 1 LS Inspection for Hand over 1 LS

3-43 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report (6) Construction Cost (Outlet Drainage Structure at Sta. 56+151.898)

Table-2 Revised Project Cost of Outlet Drainage Structure at Main Canal (C-1) km. 56+151.898

Note: Factor "F" means percentage of indirect cost against direct cost which include management cost, bank interest, profile and VAT.

Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Sum Side Drainage Regulator Sta. 56+151.898 of PR.(C-1) Canal 1. Earth Work 1.1 - Clearing work by machine sq.m. 7,365.00 18.25 134,411.25 1.2 - Striping work by machine cu.m. 2,210.00 17.06 37,702.60 1.3 - Earth excavation work by machine cu.m. 11,590.00 53.06 614,965.40 1.4 - Earth excavation work by hand cu.m. 1,543.70 113.50 175,209.95 1.5 - Earth filling and compacting 95 % by machine cu.m. 10,490.00 159.86 1,676,931.40 1.6 - Earth filling and compacting by light weight machine cu.m. 1,400.00 113.57 158,998.00 2. Gravel and sand bedding 0.20 m. thick cu.m. 535.70 1,137.35 609,278.40 3. Lean concrete cu.m. 174.00 2,003.42 348,595.08 4. Structural concrete cu.m. 2,645.00 2,852.19 7,544,042.55 5. Concrete lining for canal cu.m. 46.00 2,551.01 117,346.46 6. WIRE MESH 5 mm. @ 0.20 m. sq.m. 456.00 62.51 28,504.56 7. Plastic work 0.50 mm. thick sq.m. 456.00 45.50 20,748.00 8. Form work sq.m. 5,616.00 582.77 3,272,836.32 9. Steel Reinforcement 9.1 - DB.12 mm. kg. 863.00 30.84 26,614.92 9.2 - DB.16 mm. kg. 64,300.00 30.73 1,975,939.00 9.3 - DB.20 mm. kg. 114,700.00 30.53 3,501,791.00 9.4 - DB.25 mm. kg. 27,220.00 30.53 831,026.60 10 Hand rail m. 95.00 1,235.72 117,393.40 11 Rubber Water Stop Type "A" m. 151.00 598.00 90,298.00 12 Rubber Water Stop Type "C" m. 159.00 230.00 36,570.00 13 Elastic filler 0.01 m. thick sq.m. 94.00 360.00 33,840.00 14 Sealing compound sq.m. 129.00 46.92 6,052.68 15 Joint sealant 1x3 cm. m. 416.00 528.00 219,648.00 16 Drainage gate 3.00x4.00 m. with lifting equipment +Blockout set 3.00 1,050,000.00 3,150,000.00 17 Bulkhead gate 3.00m.x0.90 m.x4set + Blockout x 3set L.S. 1.00 1,350,000.00 1,350,000.00 Roof work with steel structure for gate lifting equipment including other 18 place 1.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 accessories 19 Ladder to operation floor place 2.00 50,000.00 100,000.00 20 Ladder rung place 3.00 33,000.00 99,000.00 21 Placed riprap 0.50 m. thick cu.m. 449.00 1,085.95 487,591.55 22 Drump riprap 0.50 m. thick cu.m. 230.00 760.20 174,846.00 23 L-steel bar 100x100x12 mm. (17.8 kg./m. weight) for peir protection place 2.00 10,000.00 20,000.00

24 Asphaltic pavement road work for operation & maintenance sq.m. 1,175.00 274.21 322,196.75

25 Sodding sq.m. 2,163.00 23.23 50,246.49 Sub-Total (A) 27,432,624.36 Temporary work % 5% 1,371,631.22 Sub-Total (B) 28,804,255.57 Contingency % 10% 2,880,425.56 Total of Direct Cost 31,684,681.13 Factor "F" 1.2223 7,043,182.23 Contract cost include Factor "F" 38,727,863.36 Construction supervision cost by Local Consultant - Senior Engineer L.S. 950,400.00 - Junior Engineer L.S. 396,000.00 Sub-Total (C) 1,346,400.00

Total Budget 40,074,263.36 Say 40,100,000

JICA 3-44 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report (7) Quantity (Outlet Drainage Structure at Sta.56+151.898)

Revised Quantity Calculation of Outlet Drainage Structure at km. 56+151.898 Original Revised Item Description Unit Quantity Quantity Side Drainage Regulator Sta. 56+151.898 of PR.(C-1) Canal

1. Earth Work 1.1 - Clearing work by machine sq.m. 7,300.00 7,365.00 1.2 - Striping work by machine cu.m. 2,725.00 2,210.00 1.3 - Earth excavation work by machine cu.m. 28,650.00 11,590.00

1.4 - Earth excavation work by hand cu.m. 300.00 1,543.70

1.5 - Earth filling and compacting 95 % by machine cu.m. 31,150.00 10,490.00 1.6 - Earth filling and compacting by light weight machine cu.m. 7,270.00 1,400.00 2. Gravel and sand bedding 0.20 m. thick cu.m. 390.00 535.70 3. Lean concrete cu.m. 195.00 174.00 4. Structural concrete cu.m. 2,605.00 2,645.00 5. Concrete lining for canal cu.m. 90.00 46.00 6. WIRE MESH 5 mm. @ 0.20 m. sq.m. 925.00 456.00 7. Plastic work 0.50 mm. thick sq.m. 925.00 456.00 8. Form work sq.m. 5,340.00 5,616.00 9. Steel Reinforcement 9.1 - DB.12 mm. kg. 863.30 863.00 9.2 - DB.16 mm. kg. 64,306.00 64,300.00 9.3 - DB.20 mm. kg. 114,682.10 114,700.00 9.4 - DB.25 mm. kg. 27,219.50 27,220.00 10 Hand rail m. 105.00 95.00 11 Rubber Water Stop Type "A" m. 170.00 151.00 12 Rubber Water Stop Type "C" m. 205.00 159.00 13 Elastic filler 0.01 m. thick sq.m. 130.00 94.00 14 Sealing compound sq.m. 110.00 129.00 15 Joint sealant 1x3 cm. m. 20.00 416.00 16 Drainage gate 3.00x4.00 m. with lifting equipment set 3.00 3.00 17 Bulkhead gate 3.00x0.90 m. set 3.00 3.00 18 Roof work with steel structure for gate lifting equipment place 1.00 1.00 19 Ladder to operation floor place 2.00 2.00 20 Ladder rung place 3.00 3.00 21 Placed riprap 0.50 m. thick cu.m. 1,355.00 449.00 22 Dump riprap 0.50 m. thick cu.m. 630.00 230.00 23 L-steel bar 100x100x12 mm. (17.8 kg./m. weight) for peir protection place 2.00 2.00 24 Asphaltic pavement road work for operation & maintenance sq.m. 625.00 1,175.00 25 Sodding sq.m. 1,220.00 2,163.00

3-45 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

(8) Revised Plan and Profile Drawings (Outlet Drainage Structure at Sta. 56+151.898) Design of Plan Plan of Design

JICA 3-46 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Plan of longitudinal section section longitudinal of Plan

3-47 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

3.4.5. Implementation Plan of the Pilot Project (1) Implementation Method Although the Pilot Project was cancelled, the original plan was for it to be implemented by the Project Team in cooperation with RID. Construction work was to be done by contractors hired through local bidding. Construction supervision was to be done by locally-hired consultants, together with the Project Team in cooperation with RID. Expenses necessary for the construction of the pilot project was to be borne by the Project Team.

(2) Implementation Schedule

- Mid-August to end-September 2012: Preparation of tender documents.

- October 2012: Execution of tender for the selection of contractors and conclusion of the contract.

- November 2012 to April 2013: Construction of the outlet drainage structure in six months.

(3) Implementation Organization The Project Team was the implementing body for overall operation, management and supervision. Related organizations were RID with the central office, Regional Office 3 and Phlai Chumphon O&M Office for the support in management and technical supervision as a C/P agency, local consultants for construction supervision, and contractors for construction work.

3.5. Conclusions and Recommendations

3.5.1. Conclusions (1) Flood Recovery and Prevention Projects by RID i) Project Content: The total number of projects implemented by RID nationwide for flood emergency recovery and prevention are 2,236. Projects under Batch-1, Batch-2, Batch-3, Emergency- SCWRM, and Additional-1 are implemented under the special emergency budget, not under RID’s regular annual budget. These projects are directly related to recovery and protection of social, commercial and industrial infrastructure in rural and urban areas.

The 1,283 projects in the study area under the special emergency budget can be categorized into; 1) repair, reconstruction or heightening of river and canal dikes (47%), 2) repair of drainage regulators (25%), 3) repair or reconstruction of roads and bridges (11%), 4) dredging of rivers and canals (7%) and 5) distribution of pumps and generators (5%). Most of the work was to be completed by October 2012 before the wet season. Except for the construction of dams, RID did not formulate medium to long-term recovery and prevention plans for existing irrigation facilities damaged by the 2011 flood.

On the other hand, flood recovery of irrigation facilities related to agricultural production are part of the regular O&M works by O&M Project Offices (86 offices nationwide and 49 offices in the study area for large-scale irrigation systems) and RID Regional Irrigation Offices (731 systems nationwide and 151 systems in the study area for medium-scale irrigation). They are formulated as part of the 6- year MTEF plan (2012-2017) in which 1,180 O&M projects are listed in the study area..

ii) Project Costs: The total number of RID projects approved as of August 2012 was 2,236 with a total budget of 12 billion baht for the entire country. Proposals for dam construction which require longer implementation periods are still under the approval process.

iii) Engineering Aspects: The type of engineering involved in the emergency recovery projects are earth work, concrete work, stone work, pile driving, slope protection, cofferdam work, dredging,

JICA 3-48 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report pump and generator supply, etc. For the design of those works, RID can generally handle the work required, such as damage investigation, topographic and geological survey, detailed design, and construction supervision. For the design of mechanical gates and electrical equipment for dams or drainage regulators, support of Thai local consultants may be needed.

As for routine O&M work of existing facilities, there will not be any technical engineering difficulties for RID since it has extensive experience in this area of work.

iv) Implementation Schedule: The RID had planned to complete most emergency recovery projects by October 2012. However, as the project volume is substantial, it is uncertain if they can be completed within the scheduled period even if urgently implemented. Progress will depend on the scale and timing of the flood in 2012.

(2) Projects Assisted by Japan in the Past: i) The Chao Phraya Irrigation Project: Rehabilitation work will not be required for the Chao Phraya Irrigation Project although agriculture land was inundated in the 2011 flood.

ii) The Pasak Irrigation Project: There was no significant damage in the Pasak Irrigation Project. No recovery work will be needed.

iii) The Small Scale Irrigation Program (SSIP) and the Small Scale Irrigation Improvement and Rehabilitation Project (SSIRP): Some damages were reported in SSIRP. However, TAOs have commenced the recovery work. Some works are already completed and others are underway.

iv) The Large Swamp Inland Fishery Project: The Bung Boraped Sub-Project of LSIFP suffered flood damage of sedimentation and loss of equipment in the fishery center. DOF received the budget for dredging 4 MCM of sediment, and the work is underway. Procurement of the equipment has been requested to DOF Headquarters and the budget allocation is underway.

v) The Small Swamp Inland Fisheries Project: Some damages were reported for SSIFP. They are not serious, most of them are sediment-related.

vi) Overall: Thus, most of the recovery works on projects assisted by Japan in the past are already underway by the efforts of the respective agencies concerned. The recovery works that remain are not considered to be appropriate for the pilot project nor a future Japan yen loan project.

(3) Cancellation of Pilot Project Implementation: The Pilot Project for the support of flood recovery and prevention was identified as a result of field surveys and discussions with RID. The plan was to construct outlet drainage structures (flood waterways) at Phlai Chumphon O&M Project in Phitsanulok Province. However, shortly after the selection, JICA decided to cancel the Pilot Project. There were concerns about potential duplication or other unintended consequences related to the international bidding for the infrastructure for water resources management and flood prevention initiated by the Thai government. Nevertheless, the project team reviewed the detailed designs for these structures that had been prepared by RID..

3.5.2. Recommendations Recommendations on countermeasures for flood recovery and prevention on irrigation facilities in the agriculture sector are as follows:

(1) Flood countermeasure by use of irrigation canals as flood waterways It is recommended that the use of irrigation canals as floodways be promoted. This can help prevent

3-49 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report flood disasters in many places including residential and living areas, commercial and industrial areas, areas with public facilities, historical ruins, rural villages and farmland in local cities and towns situated along flood-prone rivers in the Chao Phraya River basin. In other words, irrigation facilities of both existing and new systems can be utilized not only for agricultural production but also as components of flood disaster prevention systems. For this flood countermeasure, the following issues need to be taken into consideration in project planning and technical design, in addition to the usual requirements when designing irrigation facilities.

i) In the feasibility study, an economic evaluation will be crucial to determine the feasibility of using irrigation canals as flood waterways. In the economic evaluation, project benefits will be the value of flood damage (as reduction of damage), while project costs include construction costs of the outlet drainage structure (floodway) and the increased cost of modifying the irrigation canal to flood waterways, as applicable. Therefore, a flood damage survey should be made in the early stages of the project.

ii) In the hydraulic design, the important issues are analysis of required discharge water from the river into the irrigation canal, hydraulic analysis of the irrigation canal during the discharge of river flood water, and hydraulic analysis of gates, floodway and drains at the outlet drainage structure.

iii) In the structural design, importance will be given to the mechanical design of gates, hoists, bulkhead gates and operation deck at outlet gates section, t h e structural design of floodways with box culvert or pipe culvert or concrete flume, design of baffle apron and river revetment, and design of foundation treatment.

iv) In the construction planning, cofferdam work in combination with steel sheet piles and large size sand bags will normally be required.

(2) Flood countermeasure by promotion of inundation prevention system It is recommended that inundation prevention systems be widely promoted wherever applicable to reduce crop damage, mainly of paddy, due to long periods of inundation in irrigated farmlands in the Chao Phraya River basin. For this, the following considerations shall be taken into account.

i) In the feasibility study, an inundation analysis under flood conditions will be conducted. Then a drainage plan will be prepared and used to design drainage facilities. For this purpose, previous years’ data of rainfall, catchment area, the timing and duration of inundation, inundation area, etc. are required. Evaluation of project viability, which is the most important aspect of the inundation prevention system, will be based on environment, social, technical and economic considerations. For the economic evaluation, project benefits will be obtained from the value of crops damaged by floods (as reduction of damage), while project costs are the costs of constructing the facilities to prevent inundation. Therefore, a flood damage survey for crops needs to be conducted in the early stages of the project.

ii) In designing the facilities, two drainage methods should be considered, namely natural drainage with sluice gates and mechanical drainage using pumps. During floods, river water levels are usually higher than water levels inside inundated farmland, thus mechanical drainage by pumps will be necessary. Practically, however, a combination of sluice gates and drainage pumps is often used so that natural drainage, which is more economical, is used during periods without floods, and the more expensive pumping approach isused to prevent inundation.

JICA 3-50

The P The JICA

Table 3.5.1 MTEF Plan for Phlai Chumphon O&M Project r oject N o Project/Items Areas Fiscal Budget Allocation Plan (Million Baht) f Tambon Amphoe Province Total 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560 or Flood 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Regional Irrigation Office 3 ohd1 ohd1 ohd1 4,089.1440 30.0000 384.9940 1,158.5670 775.6890 756.2280 983.6660

Phlai Chumphon O&M Project hd2 hd2 hd2 4,089.1440 30.0000 384.9940 1,158.5670 775.6890 756.2280 983.6660 C 1 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Phrompira Phrompir Phitsanul 30.0000 30.0000 - - - - - ounte P.R.-8.7R.canal (C-5) (km .8+270 - m, Tha am ok

2 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Nong Phrompir Phitsanul 2,200.0000 - - 550.0000 550.0000 550.0000 550.0000 r P.R.canal (C-1) Khaem,Yan am ok mea 3 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Phrompira Phrompir Phitsanul 20.0000 - - - - - 20.0000 s u P.R.-5.3R. canal (C-2) m am ok r e

4 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Phrompira Phrompir Phitsanul 20.0000 - - - - - 20.0000 s

f P.R.-5.3R.-4.2R. canal (C-3) m, Nong am ok o r

5 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Nong Phrompir Phitsanul 10.0000 - - - - - 10.0000 Thailand P.R.-5.3R.-4.2R.-0.4L. canal (C-4) Khaem am ok 6 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Phrompira Phrompir Phitsanul 119.8190 - 60.0000 59.8190 - - - P.R.-8.7R. canal (C-5) stage 2 m, Tha am ok 7 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Tha Chang Phrompir Phitsanul 8.7000 - - - - - 8.7000 A

P.R.-8.7R.-5.2R. canal (C-6) km .0+000 to am ok gricultu

3-51 8 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Tha Chang Phrompir Phitsanul 9.9200 - - - - - 9.9200 P.R.-8.7R.-5.5L. canal (C 7) km .0+000 to am ok 9 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Tha Chang Phrompir Phitsanul 17.4000 - - - - - 17.4000 r P.R.-8.7R.-8.5L. canal (C-8) km . 0+000 to am ok Secto al 10 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Tha Chang, Phrompir Phitsanul 11.3000 - - - - - 11.3000 P.R.-10.6R. canal (C-9) Ma Tum am ok 11 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Ma Tum, Phrompir Phitsanul 44.1000 - - - 22.1000 22.0000 - r P.R.-17.0R. canal (C-10) km .0+000 to Phai Ko am, ok 12 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Phai Ko Mueang Phitsanul 20.0000 - - - - - 20.0000 P.R.-17.0R.-3.6R. canal (C-11) Don ok 13 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Phai Ko Mueang Phitsanul 14.3000 - - - - - 14.3000 P.R.-17.0R.-3.6L. canal (C-12) km .0+000 to Don ok 14 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Jom Mueang Phitsanul 20.0000 - - - - - 20.0000 P.R.-22.2R canal (C-13) Thong, Ban ok 15 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Ban Krang, Mueang Phitsanul 73.9000 - - - 48.9000 25.0000 - P.R.-23.7R canal (C-14) Tha Nang ok 16 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Ban Krang, Mueang, Phitsanul 164.2110 - 84.6400 79.5710 - - - P.R.-25.0R canal (C-15) Tha Nang Bang ok 17 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Tha Thong Mueang Phitsanul 16.7400 - - - - - 16.7400 P.R.-36.9R canal (C-16) km .0+000 to ok 18 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Tha Pho, Mueang, Phitsanul 20.0000 - - - - - 20.0000 P.R.-40.1R canal (C-17) stage 1 Bang Bang ok 19 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Tha Pho Mueang Phitsanul 26.5000 - - - - - 26.5000 Report Final P.R.-40.1R-2.8R canal (C-18) km .0+000 to ok 20 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Tha Pho Mueang Phitsanul 24.2000 - - - 24.2000 - - P.R.-40.5R canal (C-19) km .0+000 to ok 21 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Tha Pho Mueang Phitsanul 20.0000 - - - - 20.0000 - P.R.-40.5R - 2.6L canal (C-20) km .0+000 to ok

22 Im provem ent of water distribution system for Tha Pho Mueang Phitsanul 53.0000 - - 26.5000 26.5000 - - P.R.-40.5R - 2.6L - 2.6R canal (C-21) ok

N o Project/Items Areas Fiscal Budget Allocation Plan (Million Baht) The P The Tambon Amphoe Province Total 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 r 45 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Tha Chang Phrompir Phitsanul 0.2540 - - 0.2540 - - - oject D.R.1-43L.-0L. drainage canal km .0+000 to am ok f

46 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Tha Chang Phrompir Phitsanul 0.0160 - - - 0.0160 - - or Flood D.R.1-41L. drainage canal km .0+000 to am ok 47 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Tha Chang Phrompir Phitsanul 4.4460 - - - 4.4460 - - drainage canal of D.R.1-30L. km .0+000 to am ok

48 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Tha Chang Phrompir Phitsanul 0.7870 - - - 0.7870 - - C ounte D.R.1-30L.-1R. drainage canal km .0+000 am ok 49 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Phai Ko Mueang Phitsanul 0.6270 - - - 0.6270 - - r

D.R.1-30L.-5L. drainage canal km .0+000 to Don ok mea 50 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Tha Chang, Phrompir Phitsanul 0.4390 - - - 0.4390 - - s

D.R.1-30L.-5R. drainage canal km .0+000 Phai Ko am, ok u r

51 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Phai Ko Mueang Phitsanul 0.7970 - - - - 0.7970 - e s

f D.R.1-25L. drainage canal km .0+000 to Don ok or Thailand 52 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Ban Krang Mueang Phitsanul 3.6330 - - - - 3.6330 - D.R.1-21L. drainage canal km .0+000 to ok 53 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Phai Ko Mueang Phitsanul 0.5240 - - - - 0.5240 - D.R.1-21L.-5L. drainage canal km .0+000 to Don ok

54 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Ban Krang Mueang Phitsanul 4.7680 - - 4.7680 - - - A D.R.1-19L drainage canal km .0+000 to ok gricultu 3-52 55 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Tha Pho Mueang Phitsanul 4.4660 - - - 4.4660 - - D.R.15.8-6L drainage canal km .0+000 to ok

56 Wat Phrik Mueang r

Im provem ent of water drainage system for Phitsanul 0.9740 - - - - 0.9740 - Secto al D.R.15.8-10L drainage canal km .0+000 to ok 57 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Tha Nang Bang Phitsanul 1.7820 - - 1.7820 - - - D.R.1-4L drainage canal km .0+000 to Ngam Rakam ok r 58 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Tha Thong, Mueang Phitsanul 1.9760 - - - - - 1.9760 D.R.1-10L.-5R. drainage canal km .0+000 to Phlai ok 59 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Tha Nang Bang Phitsanul 3.6500 - - - - - 3.6500 D.R.1-10L drainage canal km .0+000 to Ngam, Tha Rakam, ok 60 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Ngiew Mueang Phitsanul 0.7360 - - 0.7360 - - - D.R.15.8-14L. drainage canal km .0+000 to Ngam ok 61 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Wang Bang Phitsanul 0.0650 - - 0.0650 - - - D.R.2.-145L. drainage canal km .0+000 to Ithok, Rakam, ok 62 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Kamphaen Sam Phichit 0.1590 - - - 0.1590 - - D.R.2.-138L. drainage canal km .0+000 to g Din Ngam 63 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Kamphaen Sam Phichit 0.0070 - - - 0.0070 - - D.R.2-134L. drainage canal km .0+000 to g Din Ngam 64 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Kamphaen Sam Phichit 0.2020 - - - 0.2020 - - D.R.2-129L. draingae canal km .0+000 to g Din Ngam 65 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Sam Ngam Sam Phichit 1.3400 - - - 1.3400 - - D.R.2-125L. drainage canal km .0+000 to Ngam

Repor Final

RID t

JICA N o Project/Items Areas Fiscal Budget Allocation Plan (Mi llion Baht) P The Tambon Amphoe Province Total 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 r oject 65 Im provem ent of water drainage system for Sam Ngam Sam Phichit ------D.R.2-103L-0R drainage canal km .0+000 Ngam f 65 Im provem ent of water drainage system for ------or Flood D.R.2-103L-0R -3L drainage canal 66 Dike im provem ent for DK.1 km .0+000 to Tha Nang Bang Phitsanul 41.2500 - - 41.2500 - - - km .43+500 Ngam Rakam ok

67 Im provem ent of dike for DK.1 km .43+592 Nong Phrompir Phitsanul 19.5000 - - 19.5000 - - - C to km .62+034.731 Khaem, am, Bang ok ounte 68 Dike im provem ent for DK.2 km .0+000 to Wang Bang Phitsanul 25.0000 - - 25.0000 - - -

km .10+446 r Ithok, Bang Rakam ok mea 69 Dike im provem ent for DK.2 km .10+446 to Wang Bang Phitsanul 7.5000 - - - - - 7.5000

km .59+385 Ithok, Rang Rakam, ok s u

70 Construction of pum ping station at drainage Nong Phrompir Phitsanul 10.5000 - - - - - 10.5000 r e

s canal tail for D.R.1-59L. Khaem am ok f o 71 Construction of pum ping station at drainage Nong Phrompir Phitsanul 9.5000 - - - - - 9.5000 r canal tail for D.R.1-56L. Khaem am ok Thailand 72 Construction of pum ping station at drainage Phrompira Phrompir Phitsanul 10.2000 - - - - - 10.2000 canal tail for D.R.1-49L. m am ok 73 Construction of pum ping station at drainage Phrompira Phrompir Phitsanul 24.1000 - - 24.1000 - - -

canal tail for D.R.1-43L. m am ok A 74 Tha Chang Phrompir gricultu 3-53 Construction of pum ping station at drainage Phitsanul 5.5200 - - - - - 5.5200 canal tail for D.R.1-41L. am ok 75 Construction of pum ping station at drainage Tha Chang Phrompir Phitsanul 43.6000 - - 43.6000 - - -

r canal tail for D.R.1-30L. am ok Secto al 76 Construction of pum ping station at drainage Ban Krang Mueang Phitsanul 27.9000 - - - 27.9000 - - canal tail for D.R.1-21L. ok 77 Construction of pum ping station at drainage Ban Krang Mueang Phitsanul 19.4000 - - 19.4000 - - - r canal tail for D.R.1-19L. ok 78 Construction of pum ping station at drainage Tha Nang Bang Phitsanul 34.6000 - - 34.6000 - - - canal tail for D.R.1-10L. Ngam Rakam ok 79 Construction of pum ping station at drainage Tha Nang Bang Phitsanul 10.6000 - - - - - 10.6000 canal tail for D.R.1-4L. Ngam Rakam ok 80 Construction of pum ping station at drainage Wang Ithok Bang Phitsanul 11.6200 - - 11.6200 - - - canal tail for Khlong Go Rakam ok 81 Construction of pum ping station at drainage Wang Ithok Bang Phitsanul 7.9000 - - - - - 7.9000 canal tail for D.R.2-145L. Rakam ok 82 Construction of pum ping station at drainage Kamphaen Sam Phichit 8.1000 - - 8.1000 - - - canal tail for D.R.2-138L. g Din Ngam 83 Construction of pum ping station at drainage Kamphaen Sam Phichit 8.9600 - - 8.9600 - - - canal tail for D.R.2-129L. g Din Ngam 84 Construction of pum ping station at drainage Rang Nok Sam Phichit 34.9000 - - - - 34.9000 - canal tail for D.R.2-103L.0R. Ngam 85 Construction of gate of m ain irrigation canal Nong Phrompir Phitsanul 67.6010 - - - - 67.6010 - head, right bank Khaem am ok Repor Final

t

P The

r oject

f No Project/Items Areas Fiscal Budget Allocation Plan (M illion Baht) or Flood Tambon Amphoe Province Total 2555 2556 2557 2558 2559 2560

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 C 86 Improvement of gate of main irrigation canal Nong Phrompir Phitsanul 0.5340 - - 0.5340 - - - ounte head, right bank Khaem am ok r 87 Construction of spillway km.56+151.898 for Ngiew Mueang Phitsanul 39.1400 - 39.1400 - - - - mea

Ngam s

P.R. canal (C-1) ok u r 88 Ban Rai Bang Kra e Construction of spillway km.63+240.740 for Phitsanul 37.4000 - 37.4000 - - - - s

f P.R. canal (C-1) Thum ok or Thailand 89 Construction of office building of Phlai Tha Thong Mueang Phitsanul 60.5000 - - - - - 60.5000 Chumphon O & M Project ok 90 Improvement of office building of O & M Nong Phrompir Phitsanul 17.6000 - - - 17.6000 - -

Khaem am A

branch 1 ok gricultu

3-54 91 Improvement of office building of O & M Jom Thong Mueang Phitsanul 22.0000 - - - 22.0000 - - branch 2 ok r 92 Improvement of office building of O & M Ban Rai Bang Kra Phitsanul 22.0000 - - 22.0000 - - - Secto al branch 3 Thum ok 93 Improvement of bridge across main Ma Tum Phrompir Phitsanul 7.0940 - 7.0940 - - - - r irrigation canal km. 17+240 am ok 94 Improvement of bridge across main Wat Phrik Mueang Phitsanul 6.2360 - 6.2360 - - - - irrigation canal km.49+389.36 ok 95 Improvement of bridge across main Wat Phrik Mueang Phitsanul 5.4500 - - 5.4500 - - - irrigation canal km.52+950 ok 96 Improvement of bridge across main Ban Rai Bang Kra Phitsanul 3.8800 - - 3.8800 - - - irrigation canal km.62+556 Thum ok 97 Improvement of bridge across main Ngiew Mueang Phitsanul 6.5190 - 6.5190 - - - - irrigation canal km.57+750 Ngam ok 98 Improvement of bridge across main Kok Salut Bang Kra Phitsanul 5.8550 - 5.8550 - - - - irrigation canal km.70+848 Thum ok MTEF: Mid-Term Expenditure Framework

Note: Five projects (NO. 16, 93, 94, 97 &98) were approved for 2012/13 budget year to commence the work in October 2012, accord ing to the project office. Repor Final RID t The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Naresuan Barrage & Head

Phlai Chumphon O&M Project (A=218,000 rai)

Dongsethi O&M Project (A=186,000 rai)

Tabua O&M Project (A=168,540 rai)

Figure 3.5.1 Location Map of Phlai Chumphon O&M Project

3-55 RID The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Existing Regulators (1) DR1‐59L Regulator & Pumping Nan River Station

(2) DR1‐56L Regulator & Pumping Station

(3) DR1‐49L Regulator & Pumping Head Regulator Sta.0+045 Station

(4) DR1‐43L Regulator & Pumping Station

(5) DR1‐41L Regulator & Kwai Noi River Pumping Station Naresuan Barrage

(6) DR1‐30L Regulator & Pumping Station (Existing) DR1‐25L Regulator & Pumping Station (7) DR1‐21L Regulator & Pumping Regulator Sta.10+620 Station Phitsanulok (8) DR1‐19L Regulator & Pumping Station (9) DR1‐10L Regulator & Pumping Station Nan River Regulator Sta.25+020 Yom River (10) DR1‐4L Regulator & Pumping Station Proposed outlet drainage structure at km 56+151 on C‐1 Regulator Sta.40+720 main canal with spillway Proposed outlet drainage structure at km 63+240 on C‐1 main canal

(11) Klong Go Regulator & Pumping Station Regulator Sta.52+120 (12) DR2‐145L Regulator & Pumping Station

(13) DR2‐138L Regulator & Pumping Station

Regulator Pumping Station Regulator Sta.58+800 Tail Regulator Drainage Canal (14) DR2‐129L Regulator & River Canal Pumping Station Water Distribution Branch 1 Water Distribution Branch 2 Water Distribution Branch 3 Regulator Sta. 72+500

(15) DR2‐103L.0R Regulator & Pumping Station

Proposed Sites for Drainage Pumping Stations and Outlet Drainage Structure at Phlai Chumphon O&M

Figure 3.5.2 Proposed Sites for Drainage Pumping Stations and Outlet Drainage Structures at Phlai Chumphon O&M Project

JICA 3-56 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

CHAPTER 4. COMPONENT 3: GUIDELINES FOR DISASTER- RESILIENT AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY 4.1. Overview of Component 3 4.1.1. Component 3 Output The output of Component 3 is guidelines on disaster-resilient agriculture and agricultural community planning. These guidelines were designed for use in the entire Chao Phraya River basin so that rural agricultural communities in these areas will be ready and capable to cope with any future large floods. 4.1.2. Selection of Model Areas for Component 3 (1) Selection of Provinces Five provinces (changwat) were selected to represent different areas in the Chao Phraya River Basin as follows: Phitsanulok (the upper Chao Phraya River Basin), Chainat (the upper Chao Phraya Delta), Pra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya (hereinafter Ayutthaya)(the middle Delta), Pathum Thani (the lower Delta) and Nakhon Pathom (the lower Delta).. The fifth province Nakhon Pathom was primarily selected for the orchid cultivation sub-sector.. In the kick-off meeting held on 28th March, 2012, JCC members agreed on the selection of provinces and selection criteria for model areas to be selected at provincial level (see Appendix I-A-1-2). (2) Selection of Model Tambons Selection of model areas were made in each province based on the following criteria: 1) a variety of farming systems is represented, 2) the community is characterized by strong social bonds, cooperative towards government agencies, and is recommended by provincial government offices, 3) the area suffered flood damage in 2011, and 4) may be affected by the government flood mitigation plans such as for water retention, including monkey cheek reservoirs, or floodways. While the Model Areas were selected at the Tambon (sub-district) level, some model pilot activities were implemented only in parts of a Tambon or covered more than one Tambon. While the Model Areas were selected at the Tambon (sub-district) level, some model pilot activities were implemented only in parts of a Tambon or covered more than one Tambon. The farming systems of the selected model areas are summarized below.

4-1 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Table 4.1.1 Farming System of Selected Model Areas Area Province District Tambon River/ Irrigation Farming System (changwat) (amphoe) Upper Phitsanulok Bang Rakam Chum Saeng Yom River flood plain Paddy, Field Crop, Fish 1 Chao Songkhram Rainfed Area capture Phraya River Basin Bang Nakhon Pa Kwae Wantong Paddy, Field crops 2 Krathum Mak tributary of Nan River Integrated Farming Rainfed Area Upper Chainat Wat Sing Wang Man Wang Man Riv. Field Crop, Paddy 3 Delta tributary of Tha Chin Cattle River Rainfed Sapphaya Khao Kaeo Manorom O&M Project Paddy only 4 Maha Raj O&M Project Middle Phra Bang Ban Gop Chao Bang Ban O&M Paddy only 5 Delta Nakhon Si Project Ayutthaya Monkey Cheek Project Lat Bua Singhanat Phraaya Banlue O&M Paddy, Vegetable, Fruit 6 Luang Project tree, Livestock Lower Pathum Khlong Khlong Ha North Rangsit O&M Paddy, Convert to 7 Delta Thani Luang Project houses Nakhon Bang Len Naraphirom Pra Pi Mon O&M Paddy, Orchid 8 Pathom Project * Source: JICA Project Team

JICA 4-2 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Figure 4.1.1 Location Map of Model Areas

4-3 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report 4.1.3. Preparation Process for the Guidelines and Pilot Projects In preparing the Guidelines, a participatory planning process was used in which communities were the main actors of the process. A “learning process approach” was taken to formulate the Guidelines based on lessons learned from pilot projects and activities by provincial task force members and villagers. This process of planning is also included in the general guidelines, after adjustments based on experience. Also included are details of the model projects/activities, the pilot initiatives with successful results and considered useful to disseminate (refer to Appendix II). In addition, information and communication materials such as leaflets, booklets and DVDs of the model activities were prepared in the Thai language.

Participatory Planning Process with Communities in Model Area

Rapid Flood Damage Strategic Selection of Assessment Planning Pilot Projects PRA Workshop

Study Gov’t Policy Good Tour Implementation of + Practice Pilot Projects Experts Local knowledge Knowledge Lessons Learned Guideline & Workshop Tambon Disaster Feed Resilient Plan back Learning Process (Learning by Doing)

Figure 4.1.2 Implementation Process of Component 3 Source：JICA Project Team

(1) Rapid Flood Damage Assessment (PRA) In order to understand the general condition of communities and assess the flood damage in the model Tambon areas, a rapid flood damage assessment was conducted through a workshop and walk-through survey. Using the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) methodology, key informant interviews and focus group discussions were conducted. In addition to the extent of damage from the 2011 flood, the assessments collected information on how the flood occurred, how people respond to the normal, periodic floods, the current situation and issues of agriculture, and existing local resources. It was confirmed that PRA is a useful survey method that enables outsiders to collect information about flood affected communities. With this method, it is possible, in a relatively short time, to understand the mechanism of flood occurrence at local levels and vulnerabilities of communities. Full results of the PRA are compiled in the Community Case Studies in Appendix III. The table below summarizes the salient features of each model area and issues related to the 2011 flood (see also Appendix I-D-3).

JICA 4-4 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Table 4.1.2 Salient Features of the Model Areas Salient Feature of Model Areas Situation in 2011 Flood and Model area Location and Farming System and Future Government Plan for Water Environment Livelihood Flood Mitigation 1. T. Chum Saeng - Flood Plain of Yum River - 70% is paddy field - Under water 141days Songkhram - Floods come from Sukhothai (2-3 times/ year) - Bang Rakam A. Bang Rakam, every year - Fishing in flood season - Have plan to make Phitsanulok - Partly upland and Water - Sugarcane Water retention area shortage in dry season ‘Thung Bang Rakam’ 2. T. Nakhon Pa - Flood Plain of Nan River - 90% is paddy field - 65 days flooded from Mak basin. Flood came from Kwae (2-3 times/ year) Aug. to Oct. A.BangKratum Wang Tong and Nan River - Some jasmine rice - Water overflowed from Phitsanulok - Partly upland and water - 10% is sugarcane Nam river (south part) shortage in dry season - Banana small, but - Possibility to be a water common retention area 3. T. Wang Man - Rain-fed sloped upland - 50% is paddy - Usually by inundation (2- A. Wat Sing - Flash flood came from western (1 time/ year) 3 months) but in 2011, it Chainat mountainous area - Sugarcane & cassava was flash flood (2 - Water shortage in dry season on upland months) - Migration problem 4. T. KhaoKaeo - Near Chao Phraya Dam - 90% is paddy field - The first flooded area A.Sapphaya - In 2 large-scale Irrigation (2 times/ year) with 3m depth for 3 Chainat Manorom & Maharaj Proj. - Community rice center months. - In lowland area ‘Tung Chan available - Evacuation center set Rak’ flood came from southern up. Evacuated outside area through drainage gate Tambon - Plan to be a Water Retention Area. 5. T.Gop Chao - Near Ayutthaya town and - 80% is paddy field - Pilot project of Monkey A.Bang Ban Industrial estates. (2-3 times/ year) cheek is under Ayutthaya - In the Bang Ban Polder Dike/ - 10% is banana & field construction. Pumping Pumping Project crops water into polder dike up - Inundated every year, water - 55% of people are to 3m from Noi River. employed (industry) 6. T.Singhanat 70% is paddy field Flood water flow from - Southern part of Ayutthaya - - A.LatBuaLuang adjacent to Pathumthani (2 times/ year) Ayutthaya and riverbank Ayutthaya - 26% is fruit (mango) all broke of Chao Phraya - Along Praya Banlue Canal connecting Chao Phraya and died in 2011 River - Vegetable for local and - Whole Tambon area Tha Chin River EU market flooded - Partly Land Reform Area and Polder Dike of OECF loan - 20% are Muslim - Will be protected by raising cattle and goat elevating dike of Praya project Banglue Canal 7. T. Khlong Ha - Urbanizing area near BKK and - 49% is paddy field - Water overflowed the A. KhlongLuang Industrial Estates. (2.5 times/ year) elevated embankment Pathumthani - Part of Rangsit North Large - 70% rent land - OTOS and Volunteers Scale Project - 3% involved in fishery - Schools as evacuation - Rama-IX reservoir as Monkey - Some commute to center Cheek Bangkok 8. T. Naraphirom - Near Tha Chin River and in - 80% is paddy field - 3 months from Oct to A. Bang Len Phra Phimon Project (3 times/ year) Jan (1-2.5m) Nakhon Pathom - Good access to irrigation - 46% is farmers - Difficult to restart orchid water throughout year - 90% of orchid lost due to high cost Source: Extracted from PRA reports

(2) Strategic Planning Workshop Strategic planning workshops were organized with participation of 20 representatives from each model area and some Provincial Task Force members. These four-day strategic planning workshops were held in order to draft the Disaster (Flood) Resilient Tambon Plan, a strategic plan that builds on the strengths of a community, seeks to reduce social vulnerability and describes priority activities. Utilizing the PRA survey results, visions and plans were discussed based on a SWOT analysis. A study tour to visit good practice areas was conducted during the workshop in order to understand the concept of “resilience” and to learn from local wisdom. It should be noted that Tambon Naraphirom in Nakhon Pathom province was dropped from the

4-5 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report group of model Tambons for preparing Disaster Resilient Agriculture and Agricultural Community Plans at Tambon Level, but the province remained in the project because of the activities in the orchid sub-sector. A planning workshop for orchid cultivation was organized with stakeholders from government agencies, research institutes and orchid growers. (3) Selection of Pilot Projects Pilot projects were selected in each model Tambon according to the following criteria; 1) is considered to be high priority in the Tambon’s Strategic plan, 2) is relevant to flood countermeasures and/or enhances resilience of communities, 3) will also bring benefit to the community even if there are no floods, 4) is affordable for TAO or provincial budget support, and 5) can be completed within the Project period. Pilot project were implemented after agreement of the Provincial Task Force. In addition, proposals from JICA experts presented in the Strategic Planning Workshop were examined by each Tambon and participants. Table 4.1.3 shows the selected pilot projects in each model area. Some activities were cancelled due to low feasibility and limited time, while new activities were added during implementation. (4) Implementation of Pilot Projects and Monitoring In the course of implementation of the pilot projects, many study tours were organized in order to learn from good practices and from communities in the advanced stages of implementation. Training sessions on various topics, such as formulation of disaster preparedness plans, evacuation drill and small-scale livestock farming were also conducted as learning process. In some activities, experts and counterpart agencies took initiatives to set implementation procedures and to monitor results, for example in the study to compare transplanting methods of paddy. Also, observation visits to other model areas were organized to encourage mutual learning among community members. Additional activities and follow-up activities were proposed and implemented throughout the project implementation period. In total 74 activities of 21 programs in 5 sectors were implemented as shown in the table below (see Appendix I-D-17 and Appendix III). Monitoring activities for four Tambons in Phitsanulok and Chainat Provinces were partly conducted by an NGO hired by the Project team. (5) Lessons Learned Workshop Lessons learned workshops were organized in each model area at the end of the pilot project implementation period by inviting Provincial Task Force members. Moreover, continuation of activities and expansion to other areas were discussed among participants. In some cases, implementers of the pilot project were designated as “learning center,” and they will help expand the activities to other farmers in their areas, and even outside the model areas.

JICA 4-6 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Table 4.1.3 Number of Pilot Projects/Activities by Model Area and Sector Model Area Phitsanu Chaina Ayutthay Sector Program lok t a

P K Pathum Thani Nakho n Pathom Others Total CSS N M W M K GC SH N 1. Community Flood Disaster 1 1 1 3 Management Plan (CDRMP) 2.Drinking Water Supply during 1 1 1 1 4 Flood Period (DWS) 3.Evacuation/ Rescue Center and Communication Equipment 1 1 1 3

(EVC)

4.Youth Activities to Transfer Knowledge and Lessons 1 2 3

Learned (YALL) Community-based Flood Management Risk Disaster (CDRM) 5.Preparation of Flood Hazard 1 1 1 1 4 Map (HZDMP) 6.Participatory Flood

Monitoring/ Information 1 1 11 4

Management (PFIM)

t 7.Community Water Resource

(WRM) 1 1 1 3 Management Plan (CWRMP) 8.Water Management Facilities/ Equipment Improvements 1 1 2 (WMFE) Community Water Resources Managemen 9.Paddy Cultivation Activities 1 3 2 6 for Flood Adaptation(PADDY)

10.Good Paddy Seed 1 1 1 1 4 Production/ Seed Bank (SEED) 11.Crop Diversification and 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 8 Food Security (CRDV) 12.Logistics and Market for 1 1 1 3 Agro-produce (MKT) 13.Recovery of Orchid Sub- 2 2 Sector (ORCD) 14.Small-scale Livestock and 44 8 Pasture Development (LVS) and Livestock Sector (AGRI) Sector Livestock and 15.Research on Bamboo Utilization in Flood 3 3 Flood Damage ReductionFloodDamage Agriculture in Countermeasure (BMB)

16.Study on Fish Variety and Value in Flood-Prone Area 1 1 11 4

(FISH) 17.Income Generation utilizing 1 1 1 2 5 Local Resources (IGLR) 18.Income Diversification by 1 1 Activities towards Recovery of Rural Rural of Recovery Livelihood (iGEN) Income Generation Generation Income Agro-processing (AGPR) 19.OTOP/ Processing group Survey for flood countermeasure 1 1

(OTOP) 20.Networking with 1 1 2 Neighboring TAOs (NET) 21. Land Parcel Land Use GIS Community Database for Faster and

and Institutionfor 1 1

Strengthening (NET) Accurate Compensation Networking, Supporting Supporting Networking, Payment (LPGIS) Total 8 10 8 12 11 12 7 2 4 74

4-7 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report (6) Formulation of the draft Tambon Disaster-Resilient Plan and the Guidelines Draft guidelines were prepared based on feedback and opinion from people implementing the pilot projects. The final workshop was organized in order to obtain comments from participants on the draft Guidelines presented (see Appendix I-D-18). Each model Tambon revised their draft Disaster Resilient Agriculture and Agricultural Community plan based on experience and learning from pilot project implementation. The final versions of these plans can be found in the Appendix of this report, under community case studies. However, these should be considered as draft versions since Tambon council approval is required for this document to become an official plan. Unfortunately, it was not possible to coordinate the timing of drafting these plans with the Tambons’ 3-year plan and annual budget processes because of the time frame of this project. (7) Good Practices and Local Wisdom/ Knowledge The 2011 flood was an exceptionally large flood which caused severe damage to industrial estates and urban residential areas. The impact on rural areas can broadly be categorized into two types. In the first type were communities that were used to flooding, and had developed coping mechanisms over time, which were adjusted to the 2011 flood of a much larger scale and longer duration. The other suffered severe damage since they had not experienced such a big flood in the last few decades. The former are areas where there were good practices that could be replicated in other high risk areas. This project supported learning for people in the model areas through exchange of ideas, and by organizing study tours to areas where good practices were found. In flood-prone areas in Thailand, we can find many examples of local wisdom and knowledge of how people have learned to live with floods. Even in areas that no longer experience floods as a result of constructing irrigation and drainage facilities, the know-how of living with floods can still be found. It is worthwhile collecting such knowledge and practices and introducing them to other areas. In this project, a survey was conducted to record such good practices and local knowledge so that they could be shared with people from flood risk areas (see Appendix I-D-6). (8) Reflect Experts’ Knowledge and Government Policy Before preparing the Tambon Disaster Resilient Agriculture and Agricultural Community plans, ministry policies on disaster management, provincial agricultural development plans and directives of technical development and extension of each crop were studied. Some relevant policies, plans and directives include: paddy cultivation twice a year at most in flood-risk areas, promotion of CBDRM at Tambon level, GAP certification for vegetables and pre-GMP standards for food processing. The planning process also incorporated technical expertise and research. By tapping into studies and research conducted by local universities and other research institutes, as well as the knowledge of Japanese experts, it was possible to include a wide range of flood countermeasures into the plans. 4.1.4. Stakeholders in Component 3 For Component 3, nine departments and offices under MOAC were involved in this Project as Joint Coordination Committee members. At the provincial level, Provincial Task Forces chaired by the Provincial Governor was organized in each province and provincial offices of DDPM and CDD under the Ministry of Interior were assigned as members, in addition to the offices under MOAC. The role of each department or office in the Project is summarized in Table 4.1.4.

JICA 4-8 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Table 4.1.4 Government Agencies Involved in Component 3 and their Roles and Responsibilities Logo Organization Central /JCC Regional/ Provincial Related Program Ministry of Deputy Permanent Provincial Agricultural Agriculture and Secretary is chairman , and Cooperative Office Cooperatives Disaster Monitoring (PACO) is secretary of (MOAC) Center in OPS Prov. Task Force. Office of C/P coordinator of No office at province. - Land Parcel GIS Agricultural Component 3. Agro- Regional OAE 2, 7 in Database Economics information, statistics. Phitsanulok/Chainat (OAE) Estimation crop loss by participate in TF.

disaster Compile crop damage Royal Irrigation Irrigation & Drainage. Prov. office care - Monkey Cheek Department C/P of Component 2. Medium scale irr. And - Particip.water (RID) micro watershed dev’t. measurement & Large irr. by Regional website Department of Horticulture Promotion District DOAE, Tambon - Crop diversify Agricultural Dept. Take lead of extension farmer - Green market Extension orchid project registration, database, - GIS Database (DOAE) damage survey, training - Orchid

visit Rice Department Rice research, policy. Rice Research Centers - Transplant (RD) Flood countermeasure in Prov. joined TF. - Cost reduction by Rice research center Recommend variety, - Rice Variety cultivation method Department of JCC member Crop research other than - Orchid bio- Agriculture rice. Develop crop control (DOA) variety, bio-control.

Department of C/P of Component 1. Prov. and district office - Livestock dev’t Livestock Animal Nutrition Dept. take part in TF. - Feed production Development responsible for pasture ANRDC responsible for storage (DLD) and feed storage feed production and - Goat raising storage - Bio-gas Department of JCC member Prov. office promote - Fish pond Fishery fresh culture, fingering - Fish survey (DOF) provision, processing.

Land Microorganism, Soil- Prov. was TF member - Cost reduction Development water conservation. Por Dor provision and - Safe vegetable Department Por dor was used water resources - Community (LDD) Monkey Cheek Agricultural JCC member Land Reform Area in - Integrated Agri. Land Reform Chainat Ayutthaya TF. - Safe vegetable Office (ALRO) Promote “sufficiency - Cooling economy” - Learning Center Dept. Disaster support Community Women and youth Prevention and CBDRM Development group org. OTOP Mitigation Disaster Department and income (DDPM) warning. (CDD) generation project

The organization chart of the JCC, major departments under MOAC and Task Force members of the four provinces are attached in the appendix to the report. The list of academic and training institutes involved in the pilot projects and surveys is as shown below.

4-9 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report Table 4.1.5 Universities and Institutes Involved in Component 3 University/ Institute Faculty/ Department Scope of Cooperation Target Model Area/Province Kasetsart University Dept. of Civil Engineering, Flood hazard map Chainat Prov. (KU) Faculty of Engineering Ayutthaya Prov. Center of Excellence for Bamboo research North, Central and Bamboos Northeast Institute for Food Research Food processing Pathum Thani & Production Development Kasetsart University Department of Horticulture Alternative growing Nakhon Pathom Kampensaeng Campus Faculty of Agriculture media for orchid King Mongkut’s Faculty of Agricultural Small scale livestock Chainat Prov. Institute of Technology Technology development Ayutthaya Prov. Ladkrabang (KMITL) Naresuan University Department of Agro- Fish Survey and Fish Phitsanulok Prov. industry, Faculty of Processing (Survey includes Agriculture, Natural Chainat Prov. and Resources and Environment Ayutthaya Prov.) Khon Kaen University Research and Development Good Practice on Flood Central, North and Institute OTOP survey NE case studies Hydro and Agro Flood hazard map Phitsanulok Informatic Institute Participatory water (HAII) measurement

4.1.5. Composition and Structure of the Guidelines and Technical Papers These guidelines consist of a General Guideline Guideline and 5 Thematic Guidelines, ‐Objective, Target, Basic Concept which are described in sections 4.2 and ‐Participatory Planning at Tambon level ･Participatory Flood Hazard Map Making ‐ Flood Risk Area and Priority 4.3of this report. Details of all pilot ･ Feed Storage for Livestock during Flood 1. Community Based Disaster Risk ･Participatory Water Measurement projects, including their components, Management [CBDRM] have been written up as Technical 2. Community Water Resources Management [CWRM] Papers, and have been included in the 3. Flood Damage Reduction Measures in appendix to this report. Furthermore, Agriculture and Livestock Sector [AGRI] 4. Income Generation Activities towards the appendix also includes information Recovery of Rural Livelihood [iGEN] 5. Networking, Supporting and Institution for on PRA survey results for each model Community Strengthening [NET] 1) PRA, 2) Strategic Plan, 3) Pilot Project Sheets, area, strategic plans, pilot projects 4) Tambon Resilient Plan (Draft) implemented during this project and Figure 4.1.3 Structure of the Guidelines community case studies describing the development of the Tambon disaster-resilient plans.

4.2. The General Guideline 4.2.1. Objective: Why is Flood Disaster Resilient Plan Necessary? In most rural areas within the Greater Chao Phraya basin, people have learned to live with regular flooding, particularly in areas where floods are frequent. On the other hand, many areas suffered huge economic losses in recent years. These were areas which had not experienced severe flooding after irrigation and drainage facilities were constructed. The increase in the scale of damages and losses can also be attributed to recent changes in lifestyle. After the experience of the 2011 flood which brought about enormous damages and economic losses to the country, the Government of Thailand has conceived an ambitious Master Plan on water resource management and is planning to implement a large-scale flood countermeasure project. When these countermeasures are

JICA 4-10 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

implemented, urban areas are expected to be protected from flood waters. However, the countermeasures do not provide any guarantees for the rural agricultural areas to be protected from flooding problems. Instead, there are plans to retain flood water in rural areas to protect urban areas and to release it after floods recede. Under these circumstances, people in rural areas need to make all possible efforts to prepare for possible floods and to make their communities sufficiently resilient. To this end it is necessary to minimize the damage to agriculture and empower the rural communities to recover from disasters. This can be done by adapting their farming practices. It is for this purpose that these “Guidelines for Disaster-Resilient Agriculture and Agricultural Community” were prepared. 4.2.2. Target Users of the Guidelines These Guidelines are expected to be used by concerned national government agencies, provincial level administrative authorities, as well as the Tambon level local governments in order to formulate the Tambon Disaster-Resilient Agriculture and Agricultural Community Plan. Firstly, the Tambon Administration Organization (TAO) staff members, who compile Tambon level plans, and community leaders in Tambons, who facilitate community and farmers participation in planning, are target users of the Guidelines. Secondly, provincial level government officials are target users of the Guidelines. Although plans are prepared at Tambon level, financial and technical support from provincial authorities is essential. The selection of priority Tambons to prepare Tambon Disaster-Resilient Plans is done by the provincial government. Therefore, provincial level government authorities are key players in planning and implementation. Moreover, central level departments under MOAC need to understand the Guidelines and take initiatives for them to be reflected in policy and directives of the departments, as well as in budgetary allocations to extension programs. Along with the existing annual “Agricultural Preparedness Plan for Disaster” (see Appendix I-A-3-10 to 16 and D-15 and 16), the Guidelines be used by MOAC to strengthen community resilience, as well as formulate proposals to the cabinet for the Flood Prevention Master Plan. 4.2.3. Basic Concepts of the Guidelines (1) Resiliency: What makes agriculture and rural community resilient? “Resilience,” a term commonly used in the field of disaster prevention and mitigation in recent years, means the ability to recover, or bounce back quickly, and implies the ability to adapt to maintain a minimum level of functionality in situations where the disaster cannot be avoided. In formulating the National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) of Thailand, this concept of “resilience” is captured in the term “self-immune system,” one of the three main pillars of the “sufficiency economy” philosophy initiated by His Majesty the present King of Thailand (for more details on the “sufficiency economy,” see Appendix I-D-14). By building disaster-resilient agriculture and agricultural communities, it is possible to minimize the flood impact and strengthen the community’s ability to cope with the disaster by enabling them to maintain their livelihoods and to manage flood-related risks. (2) Learning from Past Experience “Adaptive capacity” is an important component of “resilience”. It is the capacity of the society to cope with new situations by using experience of past disasters. For example, houses in flood-prone areas elevate their floor levels based on past flood levels. Houses that experienced inundation in 2011 have already started to raise their floor level by another 30 to 50cm from the highest inundation

4-11 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report level of the 2011 flood. Another example of adaptive capacity is a community which had built flood prevention walls after the 2006 flood, and by so doing was able to avoid damage by the 2011 flood. When people develop flood countermeasures to mitigate disasters based on their own past experience, as opposed to adopting countermeasures that have been theoretically worked out and provided to them in a top-down manner, communities’ capacity to adapt is strengthened. (3) Learning from Local Wisdom and Good Practice When technical interventions in rural communities fail, it is often because the intervention does not take into consideration the local people’s life style and culture. In flood-prone areas, there is normally indigenous knowledge on agriculture and livelihood improvement, reflecting the relationships between people and nature, environment and production patterns. However, it is not just traditional, but also new knowledge on agriculture that can be adapted by local people based on trial and error. Furthermore, it is important to learn from local wisdom and lessons learned regarding actions taken to solve problems in the past. An effective way for people to learn is to hear from other people with similar experience and perspectives, and find out how they solved problems. (4) Preparation of Activities by Stage of Disaster Cycle Disaster The disaster management cycle (figure to the right) Effective Plan shows the continuum of the four stages, i.e. Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Recovery. Structural Preparedness Response measures can be planned rationally in the recovery stage, while rescue and disaster mitigation activities can be effectively implemented based on disaster risk Prevention Recovery management plans and drills prepared during the preparedness stage (JICA 2008). Efficient Implementation In the five Thematic Guidelines, the model Figure 4.2.1 Disaster management Cycle activities/projects are presented separately for each Source: Project Team based on JICA 2008 issue, and are linked to each of 2P2R stages as follows: Pre-disaster phase: “Prevention” and Pre‐ Disaster Phase During‐ Disaster Phase Post‐ Disaster Phase “Preparedness” to minimize damage and Prevention Preparedness Response Recovery loss

1. Community Based Disaster Risk During disaster phase: “Response” to the Management [CBDRM]

flood disaster and maintaining 2. Community Water Resources Management livelihoods during the flooding period, [CWRM] 3. Flood Damage Reduction Measures in Agriculture and Livestock Sector which may last for a long time [AGRI]

Post disaster phase: “Recovery” from the 4. Income Generation Activities towards Recovery disaster and return to normal conditions of Rural Livelihood [iGEN] (5) Selection of Co-Benefit Activities 5. Networking, Supporting and Institution for Community Strengthening [NET] as Model Activities/Projects Figure 4.2.2 Implementation Phase for Disaster-Resilient It is difficult for people to change Agriculture and Agricultural Community Plan Source: JICA Project Team their activities and life style to cope with a large-scale flood disaster which might occur once in 100 years. And it is doubtful that the planning for such eventualities may be useful in reality. As such, the model activities and projects

JICA 4-12 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

should be useful not only in the case of a large disaster, but also when there are no disasters or when there is regular flooding. In other words, the “co-benefit” concept was applied as a criterion when selecting activities/project components to include in these Guidelines.

Box 4.1 Example for Co-Benefit in Pilot Projects 1. Construction of Water Purification Systems for Securing Safe Water during Floods and Selling during Normal Period Instead of stocking costly water purifiers for emergency use only, water purification systems were constructed and also used during normal times to sell safe drinking water. This I can allow TAOs to stock drinking water in bottles and tanks so that they will be ready to use in case of emergencies. By selling water on a regular basis, , or by stocking and selling during community events such as funerals, the

system becomes more sustainable, both physically and economically, since this approach requires regular maintenance, and since it will secure securing regular income to be used for operation and maintenance costs. 2. Introduction of the Transplanting Method While it is recommended to introduce transplanting of paddy to shorten the planting period, it is also effective for reducing problems of weedy rice, insects and pests. Since transplanting results in lower production costs for agro- chemicals and labor, cost reduction will be the main incentive for farmers to change the planting method from direct

seeding to transplanting.

(6) Development of Tambon Disaster Resilient Plan and Support from Provincial Administrations In rural areas, community means village or society, often built around the school as the core institution, and woven together by human networks of relatives, friends, and various groups sharing common values, such as religion and other customs. Public Support In the field of community disaster management, the Central Government first priority is to strengthen the “self-help” capacity Agencies of individuals and households, as well as that of the MOAC larger community. On top of this, “public support” Provincial Governor + Line Agencies’ Office will be provided by local administrative authorities

(JICA 2008). District The Tambon Administration Organization is the key local agency and is expected to play an important role TAO: Tambon Administration Org. as the interface between the people and the higher Community Group Villages Villages Group administrative authorities, such as provincial and Group I I GroupReligious Group national government offices. I Self‐/ Mutual Help I 4.2.4. Participatory Planning Process Figure 4.2.3 Community and Self-Help, To improve community resilience through self-help and Mutual Help and Public Help mutual support, it is necessary to formulate plans with people’s participation, not by giving a ready-made, top-down plan. Figure 4.2.4 shows the process of planning, in which the common steps of Community Flood Disaster Risk Management explained in section 4.3.1 are shown in a different color. As there are standardized procedures and tools for participatory planning processes, the following is a brief description. (1) Assessment of flood damages and PRA First of all, participatory surveys should be conducted with provincial implementing agencies in order to understand the overall situation of the Tambon. PRA tools such as Mapping, Time Line, and Cropping Pattern are useful to capture information on flood occurrence and damages in the past.

4-13 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report A Walkthrough Survey on important information Flood Damage Assessment can confirm accurate locations of events and PRA record these on a map. These are important sources of information for constructing a flood Develop Participatory Flood hazard map. Hazard/ Evacuation Map Key Informant Interviews (KI) and Focus Group Discussions (FGD) are conducted to collect information on local resources (natural, human Flood Disaster Risk SWOT Analysis Management Committee and social), as well as household information, including vulnerabilities, such as the elderly and people with disabilities. Community Flood Strategic Planning Disaster Risk After the participatory surveys are conducted, a Management Plan workshop is organized to compile and review the

information collected. Participants who have Tambon Disaster Resilient information about local residents are invited Agriculture and Community Plan

from each village (muban), TAO administrators, Drill farmer group leaders, and OTOS and health volunteers. Trained provincial and district officials Figure 4.2.4 Participatory Planning such as extension officers and community Process for Disaster-Resilient development officers can be facilitators. Agriculture and Rural Community Alternatively, outsourcing to NGOs, foundations and/or consultants is recommended. The recommendation is for this to be a three day workshop. However, when conducting workshops during the post-flood recovery period, it is important that the schedule, duration and venue be fixed based on the convenience of local people, not outsiders, so as not to increase the burden on leaders and residents at a time when local leaders, are overburdened and tired.

(2) Planning As a step to formulate the Tambon Flood Disaster Resilient Plan, a SWOT analysis and Strategic Planning session shall be conducted in another workshop. In this workshop, results and information from PRA, secondary data, government policy documents and national and provincial development plans shall be used for SWOT analysis.  Strength: Local Resources  Weakness: Vulnerability  Opportunity: Government Policy and Market  Threat: Flood Risk Strategic options will be discussed and concrete projects and activities to achieve these strategies will be formulated. Finally, priority projects and activities are identified to make an action plan. These are standard steps of the strategic planning. Nowadays, many government agencies have adopted the strategic planning method, so it is also possible to follow the method used by the government. It is important, however, to understand the basic concepts described above and to take into account the five sectors discussed below. The plan can be revised and modified over time while activities are being implemented, since all activities cannot be implemented at the same time. The plan should be flexible and dynamic rather than a static blue print. In order to enhance resilience of community towards an unforeseen and uncertain

JICA 4-14 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

future, the plan shall be revised based on new knowledge and information obtained. The plan, which may include activities with Tambon budget, will need to be approved by the Tambon council and a budget should be allocated through the official process. At the same time, the plan should be utilized to get support from external sources in recovery and reconstruction in the post-flood phase without waiting for the official adjustment with Tambon development plans and/or three-year operation plans. (3) Action plans, budget and support from agencies concerned Once a plan is prepared, it must be implemented. Priority activities should be put into action plans and TAO will negotiate and discuss with provincial government agencies on technical support and budget allocation. It is recommended that study tours to learn from good practices and training are included in the plans. Relevance of model activities and projects presented in the Thematic Guidelines needs to be considered in view of the specific Tambon’s situation.

4.2.5. Risk by Areas and Priority of Formulation of Disaster-Resilient Plan The priority given to planning and support will depend on the risk of future floods. The highest priority area is the water retention area proposed by the Government, followed by the water retention area in the Delta as shown in Figures 4.2.5 and 4.2.6. Farmlands with large-scale irrigation systems in these areas have been designated to retain flood water to protect urban and industrial zones. However, the exact locations and boundaries are not known since the Government’s Flood Prevention and Water Management Project document has not yet been finalized. Medium-risk flood areas are the flood-prone areas in the Delta and the flood beds or flood plains in the upper Chao Phraya River basin, where floods occur every year. Protected areas as shown in Figure 4.2.5 are the lowest priority.

4-15 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Figure 4.2.5 Retention Areas proposed by RID

JICA 4-16 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Figure 4.2.6 Flood Countermeasure Plan by Thai Government Source: Office of the National Water and Flood Management Policy http://www.waterforthai.go.th/

4-17 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report 4.3. Thematic Guidelines 4.3.1. Community Flood Disaster Risk Management (1) Community-level Institutions for Disaster Management in Thailand In Thailand, the National Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Committee (NDPMC), established under the National Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Act issued in 2007, has prominent tasks and responsibilities for policy-making on disaster management. The 2007 Act also stipulates the Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM), which was established in 2002 under the umbrella of Ministry of Interior, as a core government department in handling national disaster management work. Regarding flooded-related disasters, the Thai Metrological Department, the Land Development Department, the Department of Water Resources, the Royal Irrigation Department (RID), and other organizations have important responsibilities along with the DDPM. Overall, the disaster management plan of the country is presented in the National Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Plan (2010-2014) issued by the NDPMC. (see Appendix I- A-4 to 13) At the community (tambon, or sub-district) level, Tambon Administrative Organization (TAO), the official local government body with two elected representatives from each village, plays a key role for disaster management. TAOs in each community are responsible for coordination among concerned government and non-government organizations in and outside the community, as well as implementation of necessary activities for disaster management with budget allocation at every stage of the disaster; pre-disaster, emergency response during the disaster, and post-disaster. Each TAO also has a staff member in charge of disaster prevention and mitigation. There are also various community volunteer organizations involved in disaster risk management. Volunteer organizations commonly found in Thai communities are described below. These volunteer organizations were widely involved in the prevention and relief work in communities during the massive flood that occurred in 2011. Participation and involvement of these volunteer organizations as well as other community resources, such as schools, health centers, and temples, are essential for effective disaster management at the community level.  Civil Defense Volunteer ( Or-Por-Por-Ror) Civil Defense Volunteers are official community volunteers assigned to assist in general public defense work under the supervision of the DDPM. Volunteers are selected from the community and receive training for civil defense. Materials and equipment necessary for the volunteers’ work, including uniforms, communication devices and vehicles, are procured by each TAO. Civil Defense Volunteers are the main voluntary force in the community to ensure public peace and support in any emergency situation, such as relief work in case of fire, flood, and accident. The volunteers also take on other tasks such as traffic direction in public events, patrol of public areas, and maintenance of criminal records.  OTOS (One Tambon One Search and Rescue Team) The DDPM launched the OTOS program in 2007 to set up efficient, skillful search and rescue teams at the community level. Selected Civil Defense Volunteers are trained as OTOS team members for search and rescue operations, such as for disasters. According to the section on “Preparedness and Response Capacity Enhancement” in the Strategic National Action Plan (SNAP) on Disaster Risk Reduction 2010-2019 (Thailand), the aim is to form OTOS in all communities by 2019 with the support of the DDPM and the Department of Local Administration (DOLA). (see Appendix I-A-4 to 14)

JICA 4-18 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

 Mr. Warning The DDPM also trains volunteers for disaster warning networks, mainly in the flash flood and mudslide-prone communities. The trained villagers, called “Mr. Warning”, give disaster risk warnings to the community and are equipped with necessary items, such as a simple warning siren.  Village Health Volunteers (Or-Sor-Mor) The Village Health Volunteer scheme was initiated in the 1970s in Thailand by the Ministry of Public Health to strengthen the health care system in the communities, particularly in rural areas. Village Health Volunteers are also expected to support medical staff to provide medical and health care services during disasters, particularly to the vulnerable population, such as the elderly and pregnant women. Their services include first aid for disaster victims, mobile unit visits to evacuation centers and homes, as well as dissemination of public notices to prevent infectious diseases.  Women’s groups There are various types of women’s groups in the Thai community such as saving groups and occupation groups. These groups often play a vital role in various community initiatives in times of disaster. Because the impact of any disaster crosses administrative boundaries, inter-tambon coordination among neighboring tambons is also an important issue for disaster risk management. In the case of floods, information sharing and cooperation among tambons having a common water system is meaningful to reduce flood disaster risks of the community. Examples and the possible mechanisms for inter-tambon coordination is presented in the Section 4.3.5 Networking and Institutional Support for Communities of this report.

(2) Overview of Community-Based Disaster Risk Management In the past, disaster management at the community level began only after the disaster struck, without any systematic effort by the community to prevent or mitigate the impact of the disaster. With increasing international recognition on the importance of community participation for disaster management, Thailand has also been encouraging community participation for making risk reduction plans. In the community-based approach, the community is central to the efforts of preventing, mitigating, and restoring damage from disasters. The concept of community-based disaster risk management in comparison with past practices is illustrated below.

4-19 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Pre‐disaster Pre‐disaster 1. Risk assessment Live normally 2. Prevention and

8. Restoration mitigation Post‐disaster

3. Preparedness of people, tools/ equipment, plans 7. Damage assessment Post‐disaster During disaster Restoration Survive, evacuate, During 4. Warning wait for disaster assistance 6. Assistance 5. Evacuation to and relief a safe place

Figure 4.3.1 Comparison of Past and Present Approaches to Community-Based Disaster Risk Management Source: Guidelines for the Community-Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) (published DDPM) As the main government department handling national disaster management, the DDPM launched the Community-Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM) program to strengthen the resilience of the community to protect their lives and livelihoods from disaster impacts through generating awareness among community people, encouraging their participation at every stage of disaster management, and strengthening institutional capacity of the community. The target is to develop the CBDRM plans for all tambons with a priority on high disaster risk areas. The guideline for the CBDRM was developed by the DDPM with the support of JICA’s technical cooperation project, The Project on Capacity Development in Disaster Management in Thailand. Key features and principles of the CBDRM approach are presented below. Table 4.3.1 Features of the CBDRM approach Feature Approach People’s Community is the main actor and directly shares the benefits of risk reduction and participation development Priority for the Children, women, elderly, challenged people, subsistence farmers, fisher folk, urban most vulnerable poor, etc. Resources Recognition on existing capacities and survival/coping strategies Risk reduction Community specific, based on the analysis of community’s disaster risks measures Aim Reduction of vulnerabilities and increase in capacities of individuals, household, communities, and society through various structural and non-structural short-term, medium-term, and longer-term risk reduction measures Goal Building of safe, disaster resilient and developed communities Link with Links disaster reduction with development development Role of outsiders Supporting and facilitating role

JICA 4-20 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Table 4.3.2 Principles of the CBDRM approach Principle Approach Participatory Participatory process and content Responsive Based on community’s felt and urgent needs Integrated Disaster management activities before, during, and after disaster, linked with other communities and the various levels of the disaster management system Proactive Stress on prevention, mitigation, and preparedness Comprehensive Structural and non-structural risk reduction measures, mixd of short-term, medium- term, and long-term measures to address vulnerabilities Multi-sectoral and Consideration for roles of all stakeholders and combination of local knowledge and multi-disciplinary resources with science and technology and other support from outsiders Empowering People’s options and capacities are increased, more access to basic social services, more control over the natural and physical environment, more confidence to participate in other development endeavors Developmental Community development gains are protected, measures to address vulnerabilities are opportunities for development (Source: Facilitator’s Guide, JICA/DDPM Project on Capacity Development in Disaster Management in Thailand) (edited by the project team)

(3) Understanding Flood Disaster Risks of People in the Community The most common disaster affecting Thailand is flooding. Floods affect Thai communities annually mainly in the rainy season between June and September. The Chao Phraya River is prone to swelling and overflowing during the rainy season, bringing along with it great destruction as experienced in 2011. Floods can be classified as flash floods or inundation. Flash floods often occur near water sources in sloping highlands due to the accumulation of rain water on saturated ground. It causes sudden and rapid water flows down to low lying areas. High flow velocities can damage houses, buildings, roads, bridges, and other structures. Inundation is caused by river overflow, or unusually high water levels exceeding the waterways’ capacity, leading to horizontal overflow of the water that floods buildings, houses, and agricultural lands. Inundation can also occur in city areas when there is intense rainfall over an extended period of time and poor drainage systems.

1) Characteristics and Risk of Flood Disasters Characteristics and risks specific to flood disasters for people in rural communities, compared with other natural disasters, are summarized below. Possible countermeasures for each characteristic are also presented.  Seasonal As mentioned above, floods in Thailand are, in principle, seasonal. Therefore, people can prepare for possible floods before the flood season, and thus mitigate the impact on their lives and livelihoods. Damage to agriculture can be also prevented or mitigated, for instance, by adjusting cropping patterns and schedules, or introducing short-harvest varieties and methods.  Predictable Unlike other natural disasters, such as earthquakes, it is possible to predict the occurrence and timing of floods, particularly of inundation, by gathering information and by monitoring water levels in and around the community. Accordingly, people in the community can strengthen preparedness, including for evacuation. Therefore, it is important for the community to set up effective data/information collection and warning systems to use effectively the given time for preparations. Coordination and cooperation with external agencies, particularly the regional office of RID and neighboring communities located in the same water system, is essential to

4-21 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report obtain information in a timely manner.  Long-term inundation Floods often cause long-term inundation in the community and constrain people’s lives in many ways. Accordingly, it is necessary to consider the issues listed in Table 4.3.3 when communities are preparing to mitigate the impacts of long-term inundation. Table 4.3.3 Issues to Consider for Damage Reduction in Long-Term Inundation Issue Necessary consideration and preparation Transportation Procurement of vehicles/boats to be used during inundation and operation mechanism, such as provision of public services Supply and Support Supply of services and relief, including drinking water, foods, other necessary materials, and medical/ health care service, to evacuees as well as people left in their houses Security Security in the community, including evacuation centers, evacuation spots for assets, and resident areas Supplemental Income Source of supplemental income to be obtained during inundation, such as fish catching/processing, and handicraft  Large-scale inundation Inundation often affects large areas in the community, damaging farm land and disrupting people’s lives. Accordingly, people who are engaged in agriculture and livestock production often have extensive damage from inundation. Early warning and other preventive measures, such as adjustment of cropping patterns and storage of livestock feed, are possible countermeasures. 2) Flood Disaster Risks by Locality Flood disaster risks and impacts differ according to the locality of a community. Communities can broadly be classified as in Table 4.3.4 below, which summarizes the issues related to community disaster risk management by community characteristics.

It is important for the community to consider appropriate approaches for flood disaster risk management based on these characteristics as well as facilities and other resources in the community. People in communities located in flood-prone areas are accustomed to living with water and often have practical knowledge on flood disaster risk management. On the other hand, people in communities with low flood risk may give lower priority to flood risk management. Flood-prone communities may focus on flood disaster risk management, whereas other communities may manage flood risk as a part of overall disaster risk management. Priorities and approaches on flood disaster risk management will inevitably differ between these two areas.

Table 4.3.4 Issues for community disaster risk management Characteristics of the General situation Issues for community community disaster risk management Food risk High  People are familiar with living  Planning/implementation of community flood (flood-prone with water disaster risk management, including water area)  People’s awareness on flood measurement, early warning, and evacuation disaster risk management is  Development and utilization of a flood hazard high map  Utilization of local knowledge and experience  Coordination with external organizations for possible support and cooperation Low (non-flood-  People are not familiar with  Planning/implementation of overall community prone area) floods disaster risk management, including floods  People’s awareness on flood  Awareness raising activities on disaster disaster risk management is low management, including floods, such as

JICA 4-22 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

disaster education in schools Type of flood Flash Flood  Caused by heavy rain mainly in  Establishment of early warning and evacuation risk sloping highlands systems based on rainfall and weather forecasts  Rapid flow of water to the  Planning/implementation of community flood lowlands disaster risk management, focusing on the characteristics of flash floods Inundation  Gradual overflow of water  Establishment of information/data  Predicable to some extent collection/analysis on water level and warning system  Planning/implementation of community flood disaster risk management, including supply and assistance during inundation Type of Rural  People have relatively common  Planning/implementation of overall community community interests and values disaster risk management  Collective activities are relatively  Utilization of community groups and networks easy to organize Urban/  Interests of the people are  Planning/implementation of overall community Sub-urban different disaster risk management with stronger  Difficulty to organize collective initiative of TAO and other authorities activities due to inbound and  Coordination with business entities in and outbound migrant residents around the community for possible support and cooperation Source: JICA Project Team

(4) Participatory Planning for Community Flood Disaster Risk Management Participatory planning and implementation for flood disaster risk management is effective for preventing and mitigating disaster impact, particularly for communities in flood-prone areas. This section briefly describes the steps to develop a community flood disaster risk management plan based on experience and lessons learned from the pilot activities of the project. Refer also to the Technical Paper No. 1 “Community Flood Disaster Risk Management Plan” (Appendix II) for details.

STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4

Necessary In Management Issue Task Action charge Committee

Public Evacuati First Aid/ Recovery

Relation on Medical

Warning/ Supply/ Rescue/ Prevention Support Security

Collection and analysis of Risk analysis and Establishment of a Development of a flood community information development of a flood management committee disaster risk management hazard/evacuation map and working groups plan Figure 4.3.2 Process for Participatory Planning for Community Flood Disaster Risk Management

1) Process of Participatory Planning on Community Flood Disaster Risk Management

STEP 1) Collection and Analysis of Community Information Basic information about the community is collected and analyzed using participatory methods, such as Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). Information to be collected include geographic, land use, demographic, infrastructure, facilities and other resources, socio- economic, and other community information.

4-23 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report STEP 2) Risk Analysis and Development of a Community Flood Hazard and Evacuation Map A community flood hazard and evacuation map is developed with basic community information and risk analysis by the community people. The map includes geographic information, water resources and related facilities, water flow of past inundation, infrastructure, community facilities, and evacuation places and evacuation routes for people, livestock, and assets. The map is useful for providing prompt flood warnings and evacuation announcements and, as a result, for preventing and mitigating flood disaster impact on the community. It is particularly important for communities in flood-prone areas to prepare accurate maps with detailed topographical information. Refer to the Technical Paper No.3 “Constructing Flood Hazard Map and Evacuation Map with Community Participation” (Appendix II) for more details. STEP 3) Establishment of a Flood Disaster Risk Management Committee and Working Groups As the third step, a flood disaster risk management committee and working groups are established. Community members participate in flood disaster risk management through different working groups under the management committee. The working groups should cover the topics such as public relations, warning and prevention, evacuation, supply and support, first aid and health, rescue and security, recovery. Additional groups to address other issues relevant to the community could also be set up.

Box 4.3.1 Preparation of Participatory Flood Hazard / Evacuation Map By constructing a Flood hazard/ evacuation map with community participation, they can prepare for future big‐ flood. Process to construct hazard map is as below;

Final product of hazard/ evacuation map Evacuation/ disaster management info on back

JICA 4-24 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

STEP 4) Development of a Flood Disaster Risk Management Plan In this step, problems and constraints for flood disaster risk management as well as their causes are comprehensively identified by the community based on past experience and on community characteristics. Accordingly, necessary tasks and actions are identified to prevent and mitigate flood disaster impacts on the community for each phase of the disaster: 1) preparation, 2) pre-flood, 3) during flood, and 4) post-flood. The preparation phase refers to the normal period where there are no risks of flooding, while the pre-flood phase is the period when the community faces the risk of damage from possible inundation. Tasks to be accomplished during the preparation and pre- inundation phases include risk assessment, strengthening of preparedness, and early warning. Evacuation, supply and support, security and assessment of the damages are main tasks for emergency response during inundation. Establishment of effective warning systems, evacuation to safe places, supply and support during inundation are key components of flood disaster risk management. The preparation process for flood disaster risk management plans can be introduced in any community. It does not cost much, but needs strong commitment of the stakeholders, particularly of community leaders who need to take the initiative for both planning and implementation. The plan should be developed based on the characteristics of the flood disaster and each community, such as flood risk and type, facilities and other resources available, or the degree of urbanization of the community. Development and implementation of a community flood disaster management plan is basically the responsibility of community leaders and members, with support from TAO. However, external support from government and non-government agencies is also required to address the institutional and financial constraints faced by the community. Technical support from the provincial department of DDPM is needed for the effective planning for flood disaster risk management, and cooperation with the regional office of the RID is essential for the community to understand fully the flood risks. Regarding awareness raising of the community, particularly of students, educational administrators can conduct school education programs on disaster risk management.

2) Collection of Water-Related Information and Establishment of Warning Systems It is important to collect and analyze water-related information in a timely manner to assess flood disaster risks, particularly in flood–prone communities. Water information can be collected from RID offices, neighboring communities, and by taking water level measurements in the community. Therefore, networking and communication with concerned external organizations, as well as establishment of water level monitoring and recording systems in the community are important tasks. In addition to the collection and analysis of the local water levels, it is important to integrate information of water levels in the wider River Basis, which is available at RID and other internet web sites. And, based on the above information, effective communication systems can be established to deliver clear and prompt warnings. Warning mechanisms, including the appointment of responsible persons as well as warning methods such as sirens and announcements through community broadcasting towers, should be a part of disaster risk management planning. Refer also to the Technical Paper No.4 “Community Participatory Water Measurement and Database System” (Appendix II) for details.

4-25 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report 3) Evacuation to Safe Places and Evacuation Drill Evacuation to safe places is crucial for people to protect themselves when faced with disasters. Evacuation should be done appropriately, swiftly, and in an orderly manner. Therefore, it is necessary for the community to identify possible evacuation centers and evacuation routes in advance not only for people but also for livestock and other assets, such as vehicles and machinery. Evacuation maps should be displayed in public places and distributed to all households along with notices about preparation needed for an evacuation. Maintaining security at evacuation sites is also an important issue to be considered as a part of disaster management planning. Conducting disaster evacuation drills will; 1) raise people’s awareness on disaster risk management, 2) strengthen networks among concerned organizations in the community, such as schools and health centers, and 3) provide an opportunity for the management committee and working groups to practice their duties.

4) Provision of Supplies and Services Provision of necessary supplies and services for evacuees and people left in their houses should be considered both in terms of emergency support as well as relatively long-term support. Securing drinking water supply is one of the most urgent and important tasks for the management committee. Because the supply channels of drinking water may be disrupted during the disaster, it is good for the community to have its own sources of drinking water located in the community or in nearby areas. Refer also to the Technical Paper No. 2 “Securing Drinking Water in Emergency Case” (Appendix II) for more detail. Box 4.3.2 Securing Drinking Water during Floods

In the 2011flood, local water supply systems were damaged by inundation and people were dependent on deliveries of emergency relief goods for their drinking water.

A water purification system at Tambon level was constructed as a pilot project at the low cost of approximately 450,000 baht in order to supply safe drinking water to people in evacuation sites or at home. Water is sold by vending machine at normal time, while emergency stocks are kept in bottles and/or tanks. By selling water in normal times, operation and maintenance cost is collected for a sustainable system.

JICA 4-26 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

5) Transferring Lessons to the Next Generation Natural disasters have a tendency to strike just as people’s memory of the previous one begins to fade. So, the experience and lessons of the 2011 flood should be transferred to the younger generation while the memory of the disaster is still fresh in people’s minds. Issues to be shared with the younger generation include; the scale of damage, people’s feelings of fear and stress, problems faced by the community, countermeasures taken by the community. Various activities can be organized for the younger people, particularly students, in collaboration with schools and community members, including guardians. Examples include exhibits of history and damages caused by past disasters, training on life skills, practice of evacuation drills, water measurement as a part of disaster education. Schools in the community can function as disaster learning centers for the next generation. Lessons to be transferred to the next generation may not be limited to direct impacts of the disaster. For instance, the people of Tambon Khlong Ha (Pathum Thani Province), one of the pilot project sites, realized the importance of improving garbage and water quality management as a result of the long-term inundation experienced in 2011. Without garbage collection services, huge amounts of garbage were left in the community and people suffered from smelly, stagnant water. Accordingly, people and high school teachers in the community planned activities to improve their garbage and water quality management. These initiatives are also recognized as a positive response to transfer the lessons from the disaster to the next generation to mitigate future disaster impacts.

Box 4.3.3 Model Project/ Activity for Preparation of Community Flood Disaster

CBDRM‐1: Participatory Flood Hazard / Evacuation Map [Responsible Organization: TAO, Technical Support: DDPM/RID] Prepare for future flood by preparing hazard/ evacuation map using accurate elevation data and participation. CBDRM‐2: Secure Safe Drinking Water in Flood Period [Responsible Org.: TAO, Water management committee, Technical Support: Private company] Construct water purification system using water well. Collect O&M cost by water vending machine. CBDRM‐3: Planning of Community Flood Disaster Risk Management and Drill with School [Responsible Org,: TAO, Disaster risk management committee, school, Technical Support: DDPM]

Develop flood disaster risk management plan in participatory manner and conduct evacuation drill in collaboration with local school to be a disaster learning center for the next generation.

4.3.2. Community Water Resources Development and Management (1) Importance of community level water resources development and management for floods and droughts 1) Classification of the Study Area regarding Community Water Resources Development and Management For the formulation of community water resources development and management plans, the Study

4-27 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report Area is classified into two areas based on topography, meteorology, hydrology and irrigation factors: (1) the upstream area of the Chao Phraya River, from Chainat to Phitsanulok, and (2) the Delta area from Chainat downstream. The former is a rain-fed agricultural area with small-scale irrigation systems, except for the area along the Nan River which has large-scale irrigation projects. On the other hand, the latter has large-scale irrigation projects and water control facilities are well- developed. When making a development and management plan, it should be noted that the 2011 flood damaged the industrial complexes and urban areas heavily in the Delta region but flood-prone areas in Thailand are affected by flooding every year and heavy flood damage of a similar scale to the 2011 flood is generated once in several years. For instance, heavy flooding similar to the one in 2011 occurred in 1995, 2006 and 2011 in the model areas of this project. The Figure 4.3.3 below shows the discharge hydrographs at Y.16 and C.13 river flow gauging stations. The discharge curve of C13 in the Delta area varies sharply but Y16 in upper Chao Phraya basin varies gently in the wet season. Differences can be explained by the fact that in C13 the discharge is controlled by the Chao Phraya barrage, resulting in sharp spikes with abrupt changes in water volume when water is released. On the other hand, there are no flood control facilities in the Yom River basin and water flows naturally.

2500 Y.16(m3/s) 2000 1500 1000 Y.16 500 Discharge(m3/s) Upstream area in Chao 0 Phraya Basin 09 09 10 10 11 11 09 09 10 10 11 11 09 09 10 10 11 11 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Jul Jul Jul Jan Jan Jan Sep Sep Sep Nov Nov Nov Mar Mar Mar May May May 5000 C.13(m3/s) C.13 4000 3000 Delta area in Chao 2000 Phraya Basin 1000 Discharge(m3/s) 0 09 09 10 10 11 11 09 09 10 10 11 11 09 09 10 10 11 11 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Jul Jul Jul Jan Jan Jan Sep Sep Sep Nov Nov Nov Mar Mar Mar May May May Figure 4.3.3 Comparison of Topography and Hydrology between Upstream and Delta areas in the Chao Phraya River Basin 2) Cause of Flood Flooding in the Study Area is caused by the following: i) Global climate change Climate change leads to more flooding. Floods can be caused either by an excess of rainfall leading to greater surface runoff or by storm surges raising the sea level. The Study Area is mainly affected by the monsoon. Tropical storms are generated under the influence of low pressure and bring strong rainfalls. ii) Reduction of water retention areas and monkey cheek(See Box 4.3.4 for an explanation of monkey cheek) areas Retention areas along the river including agricultural areas have been reduced due to rapid encroachment from urbanization and industrialization in the Study Area. As a result, less water is

JICA 4-28 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

being retained. iii) Sedimentation in swamps, rivers, ponds, and small-scale irrigation facilities Due to deforestation, urbanization and industrialization, sedimentation of soil runoff into swamps, rivers, and ponds has increased significantly. Consequently, water is not retained well in these areas, and flooding becomes worse. As for small-scale irrigation facilities such as dams, weirs and regulators, these were constructed by RID in more than 6,000 projects since 1977 as a response to the water shortage problems. These facilities have been transferred to the TAOs, and many are no longer functional, in a dilapidated condition or clogged with sand because of poor maintenance.

Box 4.3.4 Function of Water Retention Areas /Monkey Cheek Areas

The difference between water retention areas and monkey cheek areas are not always clear. The definitions of these two terms are as follows. Retention Areas: These are usually lowlands or flood-prone areas. The area is inundated every year. For large floods that occur once in several years, flood water is intentionally directed into this area. The main purpose is to protect downstream urban areas and industrial complexes from flood damage. There is no water control facility. The retention area stores the water only temporarily.

Monkey Cheek Areas: These can be lowlands, flood-prone areas, tributaries, swamps, or ponds that are inundated every year. The purpose is both flood control and water utilization. Flood water is stored in the wet seasons and is released for irrigation from the beginning of the dry seasons. Normally, there are polder dikes and intake/outlet facilities such as regulators, pumps, etc. There are two types, namely large-scale monkey cheeks in large-scale irrigation project and community monkey cheeks which are small-scale at Tambon level.

3) Importance of community level water resources development and management for flood and drought damages As mentioned above, flood varies from location to location depending on local climate conditions that are difficult to predict with confidence. In addition, the retention capacity of water retention areas has been reduced. As a result, rural communities face difficulties when there are floods or droughts. One way to mitigate against these frequently occurring disasters is to establish monkey cheeks by expanding and rehabilitating natural bodies of water, such as swamps and rivers, as well as existing canals, ponds and irrigation facilities. Monkey cheeks are able to store flood water in the rainy season so that the water can be used for various purposes in the dry season, such as for irrigation or drinking water. There are more than 520 Tambons in the upstream Study Area. If each Tambon stores 2 MCM of flood water, about 1,000 MCM of water could be stored in the entire Study Area. This is the equivalent to the capacity of a large dam, and the monkey cheeks can protect downstream areas from flood damage and store water for irrigation in the dry season. However the decision to proceed with community level monkey cheek development should be taken based on a systematic review of the water resources network and a feasibility study.

(2) Comparison between large-scale irrigation areas and small-scale irrigation or rain-fed agricultural areas When comparing areas with large-scale irrigation schemes and areas with small-scale irrigation schemes and rain-fed agriculture, it is possible to see that impact of the flood depends on geographical features of the areas, as well as on the development levels of irrigation and drainage facilities. As noted above, areas with small-scale irrigation schemes and rain-fed agriculture are predominantly in the upper Chao Phraya River Basin. The causes of the flood in these areas are overflow of banks in the major rivers and surface runoff from mountainous or hilly areas. In areas

4-29 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report characterized by small-scale irrigation systems and rain-fed agriculture, the extent of flooding is essentially determined by the river’s water level rising or the amount of water flow from hilly areas because there are few drainage facilities such as canals, gates and weirs. Furthermore, since the drainage canals and gates for storing flood water are not adequate, flood damage during the rainy season and water shortage during the dry season are the main issues in these areas. On the other hand, floods in the downstream delta areas are caused by overflow of banks in the major rivers. However, since drainage canals and gates are well developed, flooding can be controlled by using these drainage facilities. For example, the rainfall in these areas can be drained out to major rivers by using drainage canals during the beginning of the rainy season, and when the water levels of major rivers rise up by the middle of the rainy season, the drainage gates can be closed to prevent the flood water flowing in from major rivers. Table 4.3.5 shows the different types of floods and their causes in the upstream and delta areas, as well as irrigation facilities, drainage canals and drainage gates. According to the table, in the upstream area, inundations in the flood season and drought in the dry season are two big issues. In these areas, small-scale irrigation and drainage facilities such as the Small Scale Irrigation Project (SSIP) have been constructed by RID but large-scale drainage canals and drainage gates have not been constructed. In the delta area, the cause of flood is mainly the major rivers. But it is possible to control and manage the flood water levels by using drainage canals, gates and pumps because RID has already set up large-scale irrigation projects. In this Project, for flood-prone areas and the mountainous, hilly areas in the upstream areas of the Chao Phraya basin, a structural measure of Community Monkey Cheek Development is proposed. On the other hand, in the delta area, a non- structural measure of Flood Water Management Plan is proposed. Figure 4.3.4 shows the conceptual design of the water resources development and management.

Table 4.3.5 Water Resources Development and Management Plan at Community Level (1) Upstream Flood Prone Area (2) Upstream Flood Prone Area (3) Upstream Hilly Area (4) Delta Area River P River Flood Flood Pond

Tributary ulator g

Gate Re Pump Pump P P P Pond Pond Basic Concept P P P P Sugarcane Pond Paddy Drainage Gate RID project type Small Scale (SSIP,SSIFP) Small Scale (SSIP,SSIFP) Large Scale Rainfall from Rainfall from mountainous Cause of Flood Main River Main River /hilly area area & Flash Flood Issues Flood & Drought Flash Flood & Drought Flood Irrigation & - ✓ drainage network Intake facilities Small scale Mobile pump, Weir, Gate Regulator, permanent pump station Irrigation & Drainage - ✓ canal Drainage gate - ✓ Type A Type B Type C ✓ Development Type Structural Measures Non Structural Measures

JICA 4-30 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Water Resources Development and Management Plan in Small Watershed

Hilly Area Monkey Cheek Development in Community Level （Rehabilitation of small rivers and swamps, Water Level Observation & Warning System in Lowland/Flood and dredging & improvement of water Community resources facilities Prone Area

Livestock Standard and Certificate Large Scale Practical Use of Large Scale Monkey Water Level Observation Irrigation Area Cheek/ Retention Area（improvement and & Warning System in use of water control system） Community

Structural Measure Non Structural

Figure 4.3.4 Conceptual Design of the Water Resources Development and Management Plan Source: JICA Project Team

(3) Community Monkey Cheek Development from Concept to Practice Based on the characteristics of the topography, flow channel of tributaries, flood outbreak situation and existing irrigation and drainage development levels in the Study Area, community monkey cheek development is classified into three types. [Type-A] Community Monkey Cheek Development in lowland areas affected by flooding caused by overflow of major rivers [Type-B] Community Monkey Cheek Development in lowland areas affected by flooding caused by runoff from hilly areas [Type-C] Community Monkey Cheek Development in lowland and Type-A hilly rain-fed agricultural areas affected by flooding from Type-B mountainous areas 1) Community Monkey Cheek Development The concept of the monkey cheek development at community level is shown in Figure 4.3.5. Work components are the same for Types A, B, and C and consists of heightening of the dike crest, expansion of the canal section by dredging, dredging of existing ponds, and rehabilitation and construction of regulators and weirs. With these Type-C improvements, it will be possible to store flood water in the canal and to reduce flood damage along the canal, as well as to store water for irrigation in the dry season. Expected water storage by community monkey cheeks is roughly estimated as 1 MCM to 2 MCM in each Tambon. Refer to Technical Paper No.5 “Community Monkey Cheek Development Plan” (Appendix II) for more details.

4-31 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report Canal dredging River Canal Canal Canal Pond Pond

Gate Pond dredging River Gate and weir rehabilitation or new gate installation

Existing canal cross section Plan

Flood Flood

Figure 4.3.5 Concept of community monkey cheek development Source: JICA Project Team

2) Necessity of Monkey Cheek Development in Small Watershed Water There are many Tambons dependent on rain-fed agriculture or on small-scale water resources. These Tambons suffer damages from floods and droughts frequently. This small watershed water resources development and management plan is a important concept and useful for these Tambons in the upper Chao Phraya River basin as a model of monkey cheek development, not only to reduce the flood and drought damage in their own area but also to reduce the flood damage to the downstream areas. When formulating water resources development plans, to secure and manage water resources in the Tambon effectively, people found that this plan is essential for collaboration with other TAOs in the watershed. The concept is to reduce damage caused in the smal watershed by flood and drought occurring once or twice in several years by developing and managing water resources properly and through Inter-Tambon collaboration. The rehabilitation of deteriorated small water resources to increase their storage capacity is the output of this project. Refer to Technical Paper No.8 “Inter- Tambon Micro Watershed Water Resources Development Plan” (Appendix II) for details.

(4) Participatory Flood Management in Large-Scale Irrigation Areas 1) Flood Water Management in Large-Scale Irrigation Projects The irrigation and drainage canals, the permanent pumps and the gates have been constructed for operating proper water management in the large-scale irrigation scheme areas. These canals are used for irrigation and drainage in ordinary times. However, based on the experience of the large floods in 2006 and 2011, the Thai government has been reviewing a proposal to use these large-scale irrigation systems as monkey cheeks. By opening and closing the drainage gate at appropriate times, flood damage from periodic, smaller floods can be reduced, and for larger floods, swamps in low lying areas can be used as monkey cheeks to retain water. RID manages the irrigation and drainage facilities in large-scale irrigation project areas, but water management data distributed by RID often do not reach Tambons and farmers. In 2011, it was reported that flood information was not adequately transmitted to farmers, and as a result, the rice suffered damage before it could be harvested. To avoid similar situations in the future, while flood

JICA 4-32 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

management operation is appropriately operated by RID, it is important to establish an information- management system by which people can verify or compare RID’s reported water level data with those from the community’s staff gauges. By establishing such a system, it will be possible for people to make timely decisions during big floods. 2) Flood water control by RID The role of the drainage gate in a large-scale irrigation project is to intercept the flooded water which flows from the lower stream of the river, and reducing the flood damage to farmland. Moreover, after the rainy season, the flooded water in the farmland is drained out to the river as soon as possible. After that, the drainage gate is closed to store the water in the drainage canal and to utilize this water for irrigation at the beginning of the dry season. By draining the flooded water soon after rainy season, rice planting of the dry season can be started earlier. As a result, the rice planting in the rainy season can also be started early, resulting in an earlier harvest in the rainy season, thus completing the harvest before the flood season in October.

Box 4.3.5 Example of the drainage gate operation of Bang Chom Si Drainage Gate The following figure shows an example of the drainage gate operation of Bang Chom Si Drainage Gate by RID10 (Manorom & Maharaj Large Scale Irrigation Project). Drainage gate operation is aimed at mitigation of the flood damage in an irrigated area, and the effective use as monkey cheek in the lowlands area, and early commencement of rice planting in the dry season, etc. August : Open drainage gate and drain the water in farmland to Chao Phraya River. September to October : The water level of Chao Phraya River goes up. Drainage gate is closed in order to prevent the flood inflow from Chao Phraya River to farmland. The water level in farmland rises up by rain. November : After the water level of Chao Phraya River becomes low, drainage gate is opened and the water in farmland is drained. December to July : For the paddy cultivation in beginning period of dry season, drainage gate is closed for the purpose of storage water in drainage canal. Gate close Gate close Gate close for storage Gate Gate for storage open open Chao Phraya River Water Level Community Water Level Ground level

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

3) Current Flood Water Monitoring System by RID RID has classified the three zones of water volume discharge as a flood monitoring and warning system at main gauging stations and RID O&M Project offices. Figure 4.3.6 shows the river discharge volumes during the past three years at Chainat gauging station (C13) in the Study Area with RID’s three water volume zones in green (low), yellow (warning) and red (danger). By monitoring the levels, warnings can be issued when the yellow zone is reached, allowing for timely storage of drinking water and food, and for preparation of evacuation sites and measures, such as boat and helicopter, well in advance of the arrival of a big flood. Warning systems for big floods in other large-scale irrigation areas should be formulated in accordance with RID’s flood water discharge monitoring system.

4-33 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report 5000 C.13(m3/s) 4000 3000 2000 1000 Discharge(m3/s) 0 09 09 10 10 11 11 09 09 10 10 11 11 09 09 10 10 11 11 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Jul Jul Jul Jan Jan Jan Sep Sep Sep Nov Nov Nov Mar Mar Mar May May May Figure 4.3.6 Discharge Record ( 2009-2011) and Flood Warning Zone at C.13 gauging station in Chao Phraya River Source: RID

4) Development of a Community Flood Information System In a model pilot project, a flood water management website was introduced into the Tambon office. This website allows for comparison and analysis of the staff gauge water level data installed in the community and RID’s water level data. This simple system is web-based so that the local community, the general public and government agencies can all access the data in real time. The website contains information for community water management and warnings for floods and droughts such as:  Water level and discharge data from RID telemetering stations that affect the water levels in the community areas. Data from RID telemetering stations can be found at the hydrology and water management center for each region. The data can be entered into the community database and shown in the community website in the form of graphs and tables.  Community water level data from staff gauge station monitoring. Historical water level data is shown in graph and table formats.  Regional and national water management data, such as flow charts showing discharge and water level of the river basin, and real time CCTV showing dam operation in upstream areas.  Weather conditions and weather forecast of the community  Web links to important agencies for community water management such as the Royal Irrigation Department (RID), the Thai Meteorological Department (TMD), the Provincial Office, and the Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM).  Community news and useful water-related information. The community water level data and RID water records must be entered by a committee or a district officer who is assigned as the website administrator. The data should be updated daily in the community website. Refer to Technical Paper No.4 “Community Participatory Water Measurement and Database System” (Appendix II) for more details. The current information flow and the proposed changes in information sharing are shown in the following Figures 4.3.7 and 4.3.8.

Box. 4.3.6 Pilot Activity/Project for Development of Water Resources and Management CWRM-1: Community Monkey Cheek Development Plan,[Implementation：TAO, Support：RID] Community monkey cheek development utilizing existing water resources facilities in Small Scale Irrigation Areas/ Rain-fed Agricultural Areas CWRM-2: Inter-Tambon Micro Watershed Water Resources Development Plan [Implementation：TAO、Support：RID, PAO, DOLA] Micro Watershed Monkey Cheek Development in collaboration with Tambons, Local Government Cooperation Scheme CWRM-3: Community Participatory Water Measurement and Database System [Implementation：TAO, Support：RID, University] Necessary Flood Information System for Participatory Flood Water Management in Large Scale Irrigation Areas

JICA 4-34 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

River

Regulator TAO

RID Distributing information/ Forecasting & Warning

District Chief Drainage Gate

Distributing information/ Forecasting & Warning Distributing information/ Forecasting & Warning

: Discharge gauging station at Major River Provincial ：Discharge gauging station at RID Governor O& M project office

Figure 4.3.7 Current Information Flow; RID→Province→District→Tambon

River

RID

Regulator TAO

Distributing information/ Forecasting & Warning

Drainage Gate District Chief

Distributing information/ Forecasting & Warning Provincial Governor : Discharge gauging station at Major River ：Discharge gauging station at RID O& M project office

Figure 4.3.8 Proposed Distributing Information/ Forecasting & Warning System RID→Tambon← Water Level Gauging Station

4-35 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

4.3.3. Flood Damage Reduction Measures in the Agriculture and Livestock Sector (1) Background The 2011 flood has reminded a lot of people about the hazards of flooding in Thailand. But at the same time, the agricultural sector is constantly dealing with floods and droughts; a flood is not necessarily a special event in Thailand. What is important is to reflect the risk of floods, as well as droughts, into the ordinary production systems of agriculture, fish culture, and livestock rearing. There are several types of agricultural areas in terms of flood risks in the Chao Phraya River basin. There are some areas where floods occur almost every year, especially in the lowland areas of the upper Chao Phraya River basin. In such areas, preventive actions need to be taken to ease the risk of flood even at a certain level of cost. A typical example is to cultivate paddy only twice a year, avoiding the risk of floods damaging the third harvest. On the other hand, there are other areas with less risk of flooding especially in large-scale irrigated areas of the lower Chao Phraya River basin. In some of these areas, the 2011 flood was almost the first flood in the past decades. In these areas, farmers may not need to change their current farming system for a once-in-a-lifetime event. Since flood risk varies among provinces, Tambons and river basins, countermeasures need to be customized according to each local area. In this chapter, many flood countermeasures are proposed as a conceptual guidance, so that government officers and farmers can choose the most appropriate measures. (2) Categories of Countermeasures in the Agriculture and Livestock Sector Proposed countermeasures towards the vision of “enhancing resilience of agricultural and rural communities against flood” are summarized in a framework in Figure 4.3.10. In the framework, there are three major stages of 1) prevention and preparedness, 2) response, and 3) recovery correspond to the three phases of “before,” “during” and “after” the flood. For each stage, strategies, approaches and specific project activities are proposed.

Stage Strategy Concepts Avoid damage by harvesting before flood comes, cultivating Avoidance flood tolerant varieties/crops and keeping animals on a raised-floor Prevention Reduce the cost of production, by which loss caused by flood Risk can be minimized; or diversify the cropping portfolio, by which Reduction risk of complete loss can be reduced. Preparedness Local seed stock of vegetables. Construction of feed storage Stock for and promotion of feed crop production for livestock. Emergency Response Provide feed for livestock during flood at evacuation sites, Evacuation including cooperation with other Tambons and DLD centers.

Be prepared to re-start agricultural production as soon as flood Quick Recovery finished, which may include preparation of seed stock and Recovery promotion of short-cycle vegetable cultivation.

Figure 4.3.9 Main Concept of Proposed Strategy by Stage of Flood

For example, for the prevention/preparedness stage, there are two major strategies “avoidance,” and

JICA 4-36 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

“risk reduction.” And for the response stage, strategies are “evacuation.” Then, after communities experience flood damage in the agriculture and livestock sector, “quick recovery” is the main strategy for the recovery stage. As shown in Figure 4.3.9, an “avoidance” strategy seeks to avoid damage to the agricultural and livestock production system. A typical example is to harvest paddy before the flood comes, or to shorten the cultivation period by transplanting and/or cultivating early maturing varieties. In the “risk reduction” strategy, on the other hand, the focus is on reducing the cost of agricultural and livestock production. Even if the flood cannot be avoided, losses caused by the flood can be minimized by reducing the cost of production. Alternatively, risk of complete loss can be reduced with more diversified farming systems. The aim of an “evacuation” strategy is to prepare a support structure for evacuating people or livestock. Feed storage at community or Tambon level, for example, can be a useful resource for livestock evacuated from flooded areas. While there are many difficulties caused by flooding, there are also some benefits, including increased availability of fish or improved soil fertility. Thus, making the best use of these availed resources can be an alternative strategy of “utilization.” Finally, if flood damage could not be avoided, “quick recovery” is important. To recover quickly from flood damage, preparedness is essential for every aspect of the production systems. For example, seed stock of paddy can be a useful resource for a quick re-start of cultivation after a flood. Or, having prior experience in vegetable cultivation is preferable if cultivation of short-cycle crops is to be the main strategy after flood. While there are activities that can be managed mostly by individual households, there are others that need to be implemented by the government in cooperation with the private sector, universities, and local institutes. Examples include financial compensation for loss and damages, provision of crop insurance, and institutional support for coordination among stakeholders across multiple sectors, including government-private partnership. The framework in Figure 4.3.10 summarizes all strategies, approaches and project activities by stage, with information on “expected level of disaster,” “expected range of target area,” and “main agencies concerned.”. For example, “1.1 Shortening of paddy cultivation period” is a program under the “avoidance” strategy, which should be done in the “before flood” stage. For this program, one essential activity is the “introduction of transplanting,” either by machine or by parachuting method. This activity will be effective for both “mega-floods” and “periodical floods” because if the paddy can be harvested before the floods arrive, harvest can be secured. In terms of the “expected range of target area,” the introduction of transplanting is primarily an activity done at farm or household level, as opposed to an activity that requires coordination with other households at village or Tambon level. Finally, regarding main agencies concerned in the activity, in this example, they are the Rice Department (RD) and the Department of Agricultural Adaptability Extension (DOAE). The RD is a research and development institute developing new technologies, such as new varieties, Sustainability while DOAE is responsible for extension services of these

technologies including the promotion of transplanting. Effectiveness When selecting activities to implement, it is helpful to consider the factors of effectiveness, adaptability, and sustainability. Even if the effectiveness of a proposed method is extremely high, it Factors affecting may not be appropriate if it cannot be adapted by farmers to their Appropriateness of Activities

4-37 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report context. Farmers often will not adopt a new approach unless they are fully convinced, even if it is known to be effective. Also, activities need to be sustainable, both technically and financially. If the dependency on external support is significantly high, activities may not be continued once outside support is terminated. Moreover, necessary action may differ depending on the level of development or readiness of the communities. In summary, the countermeasures proposed in Table 4.3.10 should not be automatically promoted as a standard package. Instead, the activities should be seen as potential activities to be reviewed in order to select relevant ones based on local conditions. Activities should also be adjusted, as necessary, to fit local conditions in a sustainable way.

JICA 4-38 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

, BAAC TAO TAO DLD DLD DOF DOF TAO DLD TAO DLD TAO AC TAO, LDD TAO, TAO, LDD TAO, O RD, DOAE DOAE, RD RD, DOAE DOA, LDD RD, DOAE RD, DOAE RD, DOAE RD, DOAE DOAE, RID DOA, DOAE DOA, DOAE DOA, DOAE M Concerned Main Agency DLD, DDPM, TAO DOAE, LDD, DOA

Cabinet, DOAE, TAO

DOAE, DOA,University

House.H

Farm/ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ Village (Muu) Village ○ ○ ○○ ○○ ○ ○ ○

Area Tambon

○ Inter-Tambon

○ Expected Range Target of Without Flood Without

○○ △ ○ ○○ ○ ○○

Flood

Periodical ○○ ○ ◎◎ ○ ○ ○○ ○ ○○ ○ ○◎ ◎○ ◎ ◎○ ○○ ○ Mega Flood Mega ◎◎○ ◎○ ◎○ ○○○ ○ ◎○○ ◎ ◎○○ ○ ◎◎ ○ ◎ ○ ○ ◎○ ◎○○ ○○○ ◎◎ ◎ ◎ ◎ ◎◎ ◎○ ◎ ◎ ◎◎ ◎ ◎○ ◎○○ ◎◎ ◎◎ ○ Situations Wherein Situations Effective/ Beneficial ) Activity Crop Insurance Crop Evacuatin Map for Livestock MapEvacuatin for Bio-fertilizer/ Bio Control (2/2) Bio-fertilizer/ Control Bio Limit totwo crops (no thirdcrop) Green Market for Self-Sufficiency (1/2) Green Market for Self-Sufficiency (2/2) Alternative Media Production Orchid of Introduction of early of maturing varietiesIntroduction Agro-Processing as income diversification income as Agro-Processing Early Preparation of Paddy in Wet Season in Paddy of Preparation Early Feed Storage for Livestock during Flood (1/2) Flood during Feed Livestock Storage for Introduction of Flood Tolerant Flood of PaddyVarieties of Introduction Income Generation Activities during and during Income post-Flood Generation Activities Early Warning System for Outbreak of Pest Paddyon Pest of Outbreak Warning for Early System Introduction transplanting of (Machine or Parachuting) Fish Processing for Value Adding for Increasing Income Value Increasing for for Adding Processing Fish Bamboo Variety and Local Knowledge Flood for Protection Colored ones are implemented in the pilot project pilot the in implemented ones are Colored ork in Agriculture and Livestock Sector Agriculture ork in drought private sectors private Program Identification of evacuation sites evacuation of Identification Shortening paddy of cultivation period Promotion of feed crops for livestock for flood and flood for livestock for feed of Promotion crops Collaboration between government, academics and 2.3 Crops Horticultural in Reduction Cost (1/2) Control Bio Bio-fertilizer/ 3.3 6.4 Financial Support Compensation the by flood the of loss 1.5 farm plots of Protection Level at Household Dikes of Construction 1.1 6.2 after flood and Prevention insects disease of 1.2 wet in season paddy of preparation Early 1.3paddy of tolerant varieties flood of Introduction 1.7 6.3 1) Majority of activities should be focused on periodical flood periodical on should be focused activities of prevention) (not Majority 1) strategy key the are recovery quick damage and the minimizing flood, mega-scale for As 2) Periodical 3) shouldflood especially when use account water into be taken is isissue (flood concerned an only not farmers for Paddy Type of Type Livestock 3.2 Promotion alternativeof energy Animal Using Bio-gas Waste Alternative for Energy Livestock 1.6 animal housing raised-floor of Introduction House) Goat Raised-Floor (in (1/2) Raising Goat Livestock Institutional & Institutional Financial asp. Commodity HorticulturalCrops 6.2 High-value and/or cultivationshort-growing crops SafeVegetable Production Diversificationfor Horticultural CropsHorticultural 2.2 reduction risk for crops of Diversification Hydroponics Aquaponics/ Horticultural CropsHorticultural 1.4 pro-water of commodities/method Introduction Floating Vegetable Growing Flood during Figure 4.3.10 Flood Countermeasure Framew Flood Countermeasure 4.3.10 Figure Strategy 5 Utilization Fishery 5.1 processing and fish fishing of Promotion Flood Period Subsistence during for Capturing Fish 4 Evacuation6 Recovery Quick Livestock 4.1 Paddy animal of Provision feed flood during 6.1 quality rice after of flood seed Provision (2/2) Flood during Feed Livestock Storage for Seed Community Bank 3 Emergency for Stock Crops Horticultural 3.1 vegetables of Local stock seed Seed Community Bank 2 Reduction Risk Paddy 2.1 reduction risk for in paddy cultivation reduction Cost Reduce Paddy Flood Risk to of Reduction Cost 1 Avoidance Recovery Re sponse

Prevention/ (After Flood)(After

Preparedness (During Flood) (During (Before Flood) (Before Enhance resilience of agricultural and rural communities against flood. against communities rural and agricultural of resilience Enhance Vision Stage

4-39 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

(3) Paddy The agro-ecology of the Chao Phraya River basin is broadly characterized by paddy cultivation; paddy makes up 69.86% of the total agricultural land use in the lower Chao Phraya River basin (RID, 20101). In addition, it was estimated that paddy accounted for 59% (10,560 million baht) of the total damage (17,848 million baht) caused by the 2011 flood in terms of compensation value. Since Thailand is abundant in water, paddy is cultivated twice or sometimes three times per year. At the same time, however, there is always a certain risk of flood every year. Thus, strategic planning of paddy cultivation is a central issue in the agriculture sector. In theory, it is quite easy to avoid flood damage. No matter how big the flood is, paddy will have no damage if it can be harvested before the flood. The challenge is how to ensure this. The government policy recommends farmers to limit the number of cultivations to twice a year, so that paddy cultivations can be done completely outside the flooding season. In reality, however, many farmers take the risk of a third crop to sometimes suffer from flood damage, including in 2011. This is because their concern is to maximize income, even if there is a risk of flooding. Given this fact, some measures focusing on cultivation approach are also proposed in the section below. 1) Proposed Measures As shown in Figure 4.3.11, there are two main ways to reduce the risk of flood regarding paddy cultivation: avoidance of flooding season and cost reduction. For avoidance, three specific approaches are proposed: limit the number of crops to two per year, introduce transplanting and use early maturing varieties of rice. For cost reduction, on the other hand, appropriate use of chemical inputs is the primary recommendation. And the use of microorganism, such as “por dor,” and use of home-grown rice seeds are proposed to replace costly inputs. Flood Risk Reduction

Avoidance of Flood Season Cost Reduction

Maximum Two Introduction of Use of New Appropriate Use of In-house Cropping per Year Transplanting Varieties Use of Micro- production Inputs organisms of seeds

Early Flood Maturing Tolerant

Figure 4.3.11 Countermeasures to Reduce the Risk of Flood to Paddy Cultivation

Avoidance of Flood Season i) Limiting the Number of Croppings to Two The first recommendation, in line with the government policy, is that the number of paddy cultivation should be limited to two times per year throughout the region. With only two crops, the chance of being hit by floods can be significantly reduced. It also helps synchronize the cropping calendar in the area. Where paddy is cultivated three times a year, or five times in two years, cultivation is often delayed and, as a result, one of them will fall into the flood risk period.

1 http://kromchol.rid.go.th/lproject/2010/index.php/-25-/101-10

JICA 4-40 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Therefore, the practice of two crops, or less, should be the main approach. Table 4.3.6 Typical and Proposed Cropping Calendar

Cropping Dry Season Rain Season Dry Season Pattern Jan. Feb. March April May June July Aug Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 2 crops per Ris k of flood year 2nd Cropping 1st Cropping

2 crop per

year 2nd Cropping Nur s e ry 1st Cropping Nursery transplanting

Flooding Period Source: Interview with DOAE (case of Phitsanulok area)

Note: 1) This table intends to show the concept of the countermeasure; the actual cropping calendar may vary depending on the location and varieties of paddy. 2) The second crop can be managed by direct seeding but by shortening the second cropping period, it would be possible to start the first crop earlier in the following year. 3) There are some cases in which irrigation water is available only from May. Even in such a case, a nursery can be organized in a small plot and then transplanted onto the main field after water is available.

ii) Introduction of Transplanting To shorten the cultivation period in the field, the transplanting method is useful. By preparing seedlings outside the main field, the duration when the crop is in the main field can be minimized. In other words, preparation of seedlings can be started two or three weeks before the main field is ready.

Although transplanting is not commonly practiced in Thailand, there are two transplanting methods seen Transplanting by parachuting (left) and by in the country: transplanting by machine, and by transplanting machine (right): which one is more suitable in central Thailand? parachuting by hand. By machine, seedlings of about 20 days are planted in about 30 minutes per rai. On the other hand, in the parachuting method, skilled laborers throw the seedlings, at the age of around 15 days, upward so that they land with the roots down.

A field trial carried out under this project, identified some advantages and disadvantages of the various planting methods as compared to the conventional direct seeding method prevailing in the area. See the discussion below for details.

iii) Use of Early Maturing Varieties There are a number of short maturing varieties available in Thailand. Superior to the conventional varieties that take 105 days (RD-41), 104-112 days (RD47) and 110-120 days (RD31), short maturing varieties, such as RD 43 and RD 51, can be harvested in 90-95 days after sowing using the direct seeding method. Therefore, the use of such varieties can also shorten the A leaflet introducing a growing period of paddy in the main field. newly developed variety of a rice cultivar

4-41 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report On the other hand, as the maturing speeds of these varieties are faster than those for conventional varieties, the potential number of tillering is relatively low. Therefore, these varieties may not always be suitable to transplanting by machines that keep wider spacing for enhanced tillering. In addition, the quality of early maturing varieties is often challenged. Thus, for shortening the growing period, the transplanting method may have more advantages.

Cost Reduction

i) Appropriate Use of Input For cost reduction, the government has been promoting the concept of “appropriate farming systems” including the reduction of seeds, chemical fertilizers and agrichemicals. The government does not necessarily discourage their use but promotes the appropriate use of these inputs. When fertilizer is applied with the right timing, composition and amount, the total amount of fertilizer used can be reduced. Also, if farmers can produce quality seeds by themselves, they do not have to purchase costly ones from the shops.

In other words, the way fertilizer is applied by farmers can be somewhat incoherent; adding urea when the leaf color is still deep green, for example. As a result, the amount of fertilizer and other chemicals used in practice is often much greater than what is recommended by the Rice Research Center or A leaflet promoting the Department of Agricultural Extension. Therefore, appropriate use of appropriate use of chemicals should be the first step for cost reduction. agrichemicals for cost reduction To determine the appropriate level of inputs, it is desirable to conduct a soil analysis. Each field has its own chemical and physical characteristics and the composition of chemical fertilizer should be adjusted based on the actual soil condition. Today, easy-to-use soil analysis kits, developed by Kasetsart University, are available in Thailand and LDD also provides soil analysis services. Thus, the provision of extension services on appropriate use of inputs should be increased.

ii) Use of Microorganisms and Organic Materials As a part of cost reduction measures, use of micro-organisms and organic materials, as alternatives to expensive chemical inputs, is also recommended. For example, instead of applying insecticide repeatedly after each appearance of insects, such as brown planthopper (BPH), it would be more cost-effective to apply the fungus beauveria as a preventive measure to suppress the population density of the insect below the economic threshold. This approach does not necessarily rule out the use of chemicals but will help to reduce production costs. For more details, refer to the next sub- section of this report.

A strain of Beauveria (left) and being propagated A body of a small insect (4‐5mm) infected by on the culture medium (corn) (right). Beauveria through direct contact infection.

JICA 4-42 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

2) Pros and cons of different planting methods

As noted, the transplanting method, either by machine or by parachuting, is recommended to shorten the cropping period of paddy in the main plot. Yet, there are some advantages and disadvantages of these methods as compared to the conventional broadcasting method.

Broadcasting (DS) Transplanting (TP) Transplanting by broad caster by machine by parachuting (PC) Table 4.3.7 Specification of Three Planting Methods: DS, TP, and PC Transplanting by Transplanting by Item Broadcasting (DS) Machine (TP) Parachuting (PC) Throw seedlings on the Broadcast rice seeds Transplant seedlings surface of paddy field Outline directly on the surface about 20 days after sown at about 15 days after of paddy field on tray (w/o holes) sowing on tray (w/ holes) Total Days*1 105.7 days 114.0 days 115.9 days Planting Period*2 103.7 days 96.9 days 95.9 days Amount of Seeds 20 kg/rai 15 kg/rai 15 kg/rai On Farm Management Easiest due to wide Easier due to wide Difficult (Labor Work) spacing in line spacing Susceptible against Weedy rice is well Weedy rice is well Weed Management weedy rice managed managed Difficult to apply Easier to apply Easier to apply Insect Management pesticides pesticides pesticides Cost of Planting 50-60 Bt/rai 1,100-1,300 Bt/rai 1,200-1600 Bt/rai Cost of Agricultural 560.3 Bt/rai 439.7 Bt/rai 436.5 Bt/rai Chemicals Yield 630.1 kg/rai 714.5 kg/rai 678.4 kg/rai Total Cost 4,385 Bt/rai 5,282 Bt/rai 5,815 Bt/rai Income 8,097 Bt/rai 9,495 Bt/rai 8,932 Bt/rai Profitability Low High Middle Access to service Well Accessible Not enough Not enough provider Source: Field trial under this Project in the 2012/13 dry season. Note: *1) Days from seed soaking to harvesting. *2) Days after sowing or days after transplanting onto the main field (excluding nursery period). Qualitative descriptions are comparative.

Table 4.3.7 summarizes the findings of a field trial conducted by this project to compare the three planting methods of broadcasting (BC), transplanting by machine (TP) and transplanting by parachuting (PC). As shown in the table, in terms of total days, BC was the shortest among the three methods, however, for the planting period, PC was the shortest, followed by TP and BC. However, TP and PC methods both have a nursery period outside of the paddy field in order to grow seedlings. Based on this result, if the farmer can control the cropping pattern, which includes seedling growing, land preparation and water management, TP and PC can shorten the planting period and avoid flood damage.

4-43 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report For weedy rice management, it was easier to see and remove the weedy rice from the TP and PC fields because there is more space between the hills. It was also easier to apply agricultural chemicals such as herbicide, pesticide and fungicide in the TP and PC method fields. Thus, the cost of agricultural chemicals of TP and PC were lower than BC. Planting cost and amount of seeds were different among the three methods: the planting cost of BC was lowest but the amount of seeds was highest. The TP method recorded the highest production, the second was PC and the third was BC. For BC, the total cost was the lowest but the income was also the lowest. In some cases, rice produced by TP or PC methods can be sold at a higher price, because of the high quality of seeds. Therefore, from the results of the field trial, we can conclude that TP was the most profitable method of the three. However, in some places, it is difficult to find service providers required for the TP and PC methods.

3) Recommendation Based on the above, the recommendations are as follows. First of all, although its impact is limited (10 to 15 days), transplanting is an effective flood countermeasure as it shortens the cultivation period in the main field. It can be an effective strategy when farmers need to modify their schedule, for instance when the previous cultivation has been delayed. Moreover, the transplanting methods have an advantage in weed management at the early stage of the cultivation. In fact, weedy rice, a group of weeds that shows similar characteristics to rice cultivars, has become problematic particularly in the paddy fields where the broadcasting method has been repeatedly used. Therefore, the transplanting methods can be promoted both as a means to deal with weed problem and a means to shorten the cultivation period. If the issue of adaptability of the technology is considered, the reduction of 10 to 15 days may not be attractive enough for many farmers. However, its benefit in weed control may persuade them to change their farming systems. Thus, when promoting transplanting methods, the advantages and disadvantages of various aspects should be addressed. The advantages of transplanting by machine are that bigger areas of paddy fields can be covered, and that less labor is needed. The latter is an important factor given the decrease in the younger population engaged in agriculture. However, the mechanization in the paddy sector, particularly the use of transplanting machines, is still at an early stage. Also, there are some areas where transplanting machines cannot be used because of soft foundations or inappropriate land preparation. Thus, in the short term, or as a transition phase, parachuting would the first priority because it is less costly to implement. On the other hand, it was found that service providers for machine transplantation and parachuting are still limited. Thus, the development of service providers in this field should also be a priority. One of the recommendations for the government sector is to support this process, especially for training in parachuting. It is better to train existing service providers who are specialized in broadcasting, rather than training those without some prior related experience in this field.

4) Other Issues to Consider Coordination with responsible agencies in irrigation management is also important. For transplanting either by machine or parachuting, seedlings need to be prepared before planting in the paddy field. If there are delays in the irrigation schedule, or if the schedule is not specified, seedlings cannot be planted at the right time. So, the irrigation schedule should be clarified and farmers before the

JICA 4-44 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

preparation period of paddy cultivation. Lastly, for smooth recovery of the paddy cultivation after a big flood, good quality seeds should be produced and kept in a seed bank.

(4) Vegetables As a means to cope with floods, vegetable cultivation can be useful for individual farmers. As listed in Figure 4.3.12, there are four major approaches to strengthen resilience in agriculture: avoidance of flood, risk reduction, stock for emergency and quick recovery. Avoidance of flood may include the use of commodities or cultivation methods suited to flooded environments. It also includes protection of farm plots by constructing dikes around the plots, particularly for high-value crops like fruits. Resilience Enhanced

Avoidance of Risk Stock for Quick Flood Reduction Emergency Recovery

Preparation High Value Short-cycle Use Commodities Protection Diversification or Cultivation of Farm of Crops of Seed Crops Crop Methods Suited Stock Cultivation Cultivation

Figure 4.3.12 Countermeasures Related to Vegetable Cultivation

Risk reduction can be achieved by diversification of crops. Since paddy cultivation is the prevailing farming system in the Chao Phraya River basin, the biggest economic loss was generated in the paddy sub-sector in the 2011 flood. In this context, vegetable cultivation can provide farmers with more alternatives, so that farmer households can be more resilient to flood damages. Moreover, preparation of seed stocks for possible emergencies is recommended. If farmer households have their own seeds, restarting vegetable cultivation can be easy. Lastly, quick recovery will be the main strategy when farmers were not able to avoid flood damage. For quick recovery, farmers should be familiar with vegetable cultivation by cultivating it under normal circumstances Vegetable cultivation can be, first of all, organized in a small upland area, facing less risk of flood. without floods, especially high-value crops and short-cycle crops. Among these approaches, appropriate ones can be selected based on the conditions of the household/community or the types of crops. Practically, these approaches listed above are suited to individual households consistent with the “sufficiency economy” philosophy. For large-scale commercial-based horticulture, more preventive measures with higher investment are required.

Floating raft is a special but still applicable means for emergency. Bamboos can also be used.

4-45 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report a) Avoidance First of all, it will be easier avoid flood damage, if vegetable cultivation is adopted. Cultivation can be done in a small plot especially for home consumption, and thus a small upland area can be allocated for vegetable cultivation. In the event of a flood, even if paddy on lowlands is flooded, vegetables on the upland are more likely to survive, and can provide food or income for the household. Another avoidance strategy is to use special methods of vegetable cultivation that are suitable even during floods. Typical examples include the use of rafts for vegetable cultivation and the selection of pro-water vegetables like morning glory. Of course, if special materials like polystyrene foam are required, it may be less practical, but it can be a good alternative for emergency situations. Other project activities in this category include: “Floating Vegetable Growing during Flood,” (Technical Paper No.11 in Appendix II) “Bamboo Diversifying crops and income sources is a good way to reduce risk unless they have the same risk Variety and Local Knowledge for Flood Protection,” pattern (an example of aquaponics). (Technical Paper No.18 in Appendix II). b) Risk Reduction As noted above, vegetable cultivation on uplands is more likely to survive than paddy. Thus, incorporating vegetable cultivation into the farming portfolio of individual farmer households can reduce the risk of total loss. Diversification of crops with different risk patterns is an orthodox but effective way to mitigate risk. So, any type of crop or farming activity, such as aquaponics, hydroponics, agro-processing, and other income generation activity can be included into the portfolio, unless they have the same risk pattern in terms of tolerance to flood. However, vegetables can also be washed away in the event of a huge flood or when upland areas are limited. Even in such cases, low-input vegetable cultivation can minimize the risk of economic loss with the same level of return. Thus, to reduce the potential that could be lost, cultivation of safe vegetables using less chemical inputs is recommended. In addition, such vegetables are also popular with consumers. Risk reduction can also be achieved through reducing production costs. One method appropriate to the Thai rural context is to use bio-extracts, a natural repellant made from various types of herbs and plants boiled in hot water, then distilled. Materials for bio-extract, such as neem, ginger leaf, and lemon grass, can be found locally. Another example is the use of compost instead of chemical fertilizer. Because of the poor sedimentary soil of the river basin, the physical structure of the soil needs to be improved for sustainable vegetable cultivation. Distilling the boiled water of various herbs, making a natural repellant: it can be a good alternative to Other programs in this category include: chemical insecticides

JICA 4-46 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

“diversification of crops for risk reduction,” and “cost reduction in horticultural crops.” c) Quick Recovery If everything is washed away by a flood, farmers will need to start a recovery process as soon as the flood recedes. In the case of paddy, it is difficult to restart cultivation due to its larger scale, requiring more funding for farmers who lost their investment by the flood. By contrast, vegetable cultivation can be started relatively easily once the land becomes dry. Although the income from a small plot is quite limited, with vegetable cultivation, farmers can earn cash in about three to four weeks. This kind of small but quick cash income can help farmers in the recovery process since the cash can be used for agricultural inputs, food or house repairs. Thus, vegetable cultivation, especially safe vegetable cultivation with low-cost inputs, can be a good strategy for recovery. In addition, if farmers already have access Farmers selling their safe vegetables at a green to an established market, this will also help speed up the market. Once a marketing route is established,the activity can be more sustainable and easier to recovery process. restart even after flood.

(5) Cash Crops In addition to paddy, field crops such as sugarcane and cassava are also cash crops. However, these field crops are usually cultivated in upland areas where the risk of drought is greater than the risk of flood. Therefore, flood countermeasures for these crops are not an urgent concern for farmers. On the other hand, severe damage has been reported on horticulture crops, especially fruit trees and orchids. These crops require substantial time to mature, i.e. they have a relatively long vegetative growth stage. As a result, economic loss tends to become significant, even for a small area. It was reported that some farmers gave up restarting mango tree cultivation as they could not wait for 4 to 5 years without cash income from selling mango fruits. In such cases, farmers need to consider 1) planting more short-cycle commodities such as banana instead of mango; 2) protecting the farm plot against flooding with dikes; and/or 3) limiting the location of fruit cultivation to only upland areas. For fruit production, more conservative approaches that involve less risk A mango orchard damaged by the 2011 flood, where bananas are newly planted instead of re‐ may be more appropriate because of the high level of cultivating mango trees because of the high cost of investment required. investment.

(6) Private-Public-Academic Collaboration for the Recovery of Sub-Sectors In the horticulture, fruit and orchid sub-sectors, which suffered enormous economic loss from flood damage, reconstruction of the industry as a whole is necessary. Issues faced by these sub-sectors cannot be addressed at the individual farm level. To solve these issues, industry, government and academia need to collaborate to come up with innovative solutions. The issue of collaboration

4-47 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report between the private sector, public or government sector and academic institutions, such as universities will be discussed in 4.3.5 Networking, Supporting and Institutions for Flood Disaster in this report.

(7) Flood Countermeasures in the Livestock Sector The most serious issue in the livestock sub-sector during and after the 2011 flood was the shortage of animal feed. Therefore, the preparation of feed crop is proposed as a major countermeasure for the livestock sub-sector. As shown in Figure 4.3.13, this consists of two programs; the preparation of stock for emergency before the flood, and the provision of animal feed under the evacuation strategy. Identification of evacuation sites is a program under the risk reduction strategy aimed at ensuring the safety of animals during floods. The identified evacuation sites will be included in maps indicating flood hazards and evacuation routes, which are prepared as part of the community-based flood disaster risk reduction plan. In Thailand, goats are mostly raised by Muslim communities, and for these communities, the raised-floor animal house program is proposed as an avoidance strategy.

Flood Countermeasures in Livestock Sub-Sector

Avoidance of Risk Stock for Evacuation Flood reduction Emergency

Introduction of Identification Promotion of Promotion of Provision of alternative feed crops animal feed raised-floor of evacuation animal house sites energy for risk during flood reduction Figure 4.3.13 Countermeasures Related to Livestock

1) Evacuation Plan In areas identified as high flood risk areas by the flood risk analysis, it is recommended to prepare an evacuation plan for animals as part of the Participatory Flood Disaster Risk Management Plan. Evacuation sites and routes of animals should be planned and indicated in the flood hazard/evacuation map. Also, the number of ruminants, mainly cattle, goat and sheep, to be fed during and after the flood should be estimated. Specifically, the following should be addressed:  Preparation of the community map showing road networks, elevation and location of livestock farmers, livestock population, and pasture areas for forage production;  Relocation of livestock should be discussed in the community, in consultation with TAO, provincial and district DLD offices, if the rainfall is expected to considerably exceed the annual average;  Through community discussions, evacuation site(s) should be identified and agreed upon prior to the flood; and  The number of ruminants that will stay in the community throughout the flooding period should be noted. This will be the target number of ruminates for supplying feed.

JICA 4-48 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Number of ruminants Estimation of Construction that will stay hay of a few to in the requirement several Total number to be stored of ruminant community storages in a animals in a community Number of ruminants community that will evacuate to a safe area away from flood

Figure 4.3.14 Flowchart of Feed Storage Planning

2) Forage Production and Hay/Silage Production The most serious issue in the livestock sub-sector during and after the 2011 flood was the shortage in animal feed. For forage production, cultivation of Pangola grass and Pakchong-1 (Giant Napier grass) is proposed. This is consistent with the DLD’s policy of cultivating Pangola grass in the lowlands and Pakchong-1 in the uplands. Main features of Pangola Grass and Pakchong-1 are summarized in Table 4.3.8. As shown in the table, profitability of Pangola Grass is 1.24 times higher than paddy in irrigated areas and 2.02 times than that in non-irrigated areas. Table 4.3.8 Main Features of Pangola Grass and Pakchong-1 Item Pangola Grass Pakchong-1 Suitable land for cultivation Low land Upland Planting method Seedlings Seedlings Appropriate time to plant All year round Early in the rainy season First Cutting 60 to 70 days after planting 75 days after planting 2nd and subsequent cuttings Every 45 to 50 days after cutting Every 45 to 60 days after cutting Cuttings per year Normally 5 to 6 times a year Normally 5 to 6 times a year Utilization Fresh & as hay Fresh & as silage Expected Yield in fresh matter 18 to 24 ton/rai/year More than 77 ton /rai/year Expected Yield in hay 4,000 to 6,000 kg/rai/year - Longevity 5 to 6 years 6 to 8 years When flood going down Immediately apply urea 25 to 50 kg/rai - Condition Irrigated Non-irrigated Cost of production 5,268Bt/rai 1,603Bt/rai Yield 3,845 kg/rai 1,200 kg/rai Selling Price 2.24 Bt/kg 2.25 Bt/kg Gross Income 8,612 Bt/rai 2,699 Bt/rai Net Income 3,344 Bt/rai 1,096 Bt/rai Profitability compared to paddy 1.24 2.02 Note: Cost and benefit calculations are based on DLD survey data (2004/05) Making Pangola Grass Hay:  Hay must be protected from rain.  For quality hay, moisture content should be reduced to around 15% by drying in the sun for two to three days.  By using a hay baler attached to a tractor, 800-1,000 bales (15-20 kg/bale) can be prepared per day. Making Pangola Grass Silage:  Silage is recommended for preserving Pangla grass during the wet season.  Silage is a kind of preserved feed that can be used during floods.  Silage can be used 20 days after packing. Making Pakchong-1 Silage:  For packing, plastic bags similar to fertilizer bags with a capacity of 30 kg-50 kg, or plastic cases (drum containers) can be used.

4-49 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report  With a suction pump, vacuum the air from the plastic bag, and then seal the bag.  After packing, it needs to be kept for about 21 days before being used as cattle feed.

3) Strengthening Forage Storage i) Concept of Feed Stock A national perspective is needed to review the feed supply system for emergency situations so that livestock farmers in flooded areas are supported by supplies of stored feed from non-flooded areas (see Figure 4.3.15). Considering the number of livestock, size of flooded areas and the duration of the flood, a huge amount of forage is required. Since stocks of feed from the Animal Nutrition Research and Development Center (ANRDC) will not be adequate, communities and individual livestock farmers will also need to store feed for cattle and goats/sheep. In the past, feed stock was not usually prepared at community level because livestock farmers had not experienced serious flooding before 2011. Therefore, it is proposed to strengthen feed production and storing at DLD centers and in communities.

ii) Feed storage

Function of Feed Storage DLD's Feed Supply Center/station Feed storage at community level contributes to strengthening feed supply in a time of disaster, keeping ruminant animals Hay & Silage Production & Storing Community/Province/Region healthy and productive, which in turn ensures a stable income

for livestock farmers. When there are floods, communities in DLD's Livestock Farmers Center Feed Supply /statio non-flooded areas can support livestock farmers in flooded n Feed Supply DLD's Feed Supply Center/s areas by supplying hay and silage from their storage. tation DLD's Similarly, feed storage with bigger capacity at DLD’s Flooded Areas Center/statio ANRDCs can support livestock farmers when disasters occur.

Estimation of Hay Storage Area DLD's Feed Supply Center/station

The floor area of storage as a model for 100 LU (livestock Non-Flooded Areas unit) can be calculated as shown below: Figure 4.3.15 Concept of Feed Stock

Table 4.3.9 Estimation of the Floor Area Conditions Assumption Body weight of a cattle (1 LU) 500 kg Intake of hay per day 13.5 kg/day/LU Flood period 60 days (to be varied depending on areas Number of cattle (LU) 100 LU (100 cattle) Requirement of hay 81.0 ton Cubic volume of hay per ton 3.9 m3 ㎥/ton Estimated cubic volume of hay 315.9m3 Height of hay bale’s heap 4.0 m Required floor area 79.1 m2 (8.9x8.9 for example)

Location The recommendation is to identify a few to several storage sites at elevated locations in the community, taking into consideration the locations of farmers raising ruminant animals, and the locations of pastures and how hay and silage bales will be transported during the flood. To do this, it is best to decide on the location and capacity of the storage using maps and through discussions involving TAO, provincial and district DLD officials, livestock and pasture farmers.

JICA 4-50 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Road

Storage Road Pasture Pasture Feed supply from ANRDCs Storage Storage and other Pasture communities

Road Figure 4.3.16 Location of Forage Storage in Community Level

iii) Hay Storage Monitoring by the DLD HQ The DLD HQ is required to monitor the status of feed stored at 29 ANRDCs in the country every month. There are a total of 116 feed storage sites of varying sizes. Out of 29 ANRDCs, 28 centers have 1 to 7 storage facilities in the size of 10 x 20m each. To cope with future floods, ANRDCs have a very important role to play because they produce and store large quantities of forage. In addition, the DLD HQ is expected to develop a national plan for transporting hay to disaster areas.

4) Goat Housing against Flooding i) Function of a goat house with raised floor There are two reasons for proposing a goat house with a raised floor. First, goat houses with the flooring raised 1.5 to 2.0 m above the ground will withstand flooding. Second, a house provides a comfortable environment for goats. Good housing makes goats healthier and more productive, and it also makes it easier to manage the animals. An ideal goat house is one that can provide the maximum comfort for goats, protecting them from floods, strong winds, heavy rains, and predatory animals. The proposed design allows for good ventilation, is easy to clean and has adequate floor space.

ii) Site selection for construction A goat house should be constructed at as elevated place which will not be affected by high floods. Wet sites should be avoided because goats do not do well in wet areas.

iii) Designing a goat house  Space for one adult goat: 1.86sq.m  Height of the loafing floor: 1.0 to 1.5 m in non-flooded area and 1.5 to 2.0 m in flooding area  Material of goat house: ・ Column support: precast concrete pile with 10 cm to 15 cm square or timber of 15 cm to 20cm square. ・ Roofing: corrugated galvanized iron sheets or wooden slats.

4-51 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Goat house Loafing area

Figure 4.3.17 Raised Floor Goat Housing Housing for a dairy herd should be partitioned so that kids, pregnant does, milking does and bucks can be kept separate. Make sure that the pen for kids is adjacent to that of their mothers. Keeping the bucks far away from the milking does helps prevent the milk from absorbing the strong smell of bucks.

iv) Cost The cost of construction of a goat house with a raised floor is estimated at 5,500 baht per sq.m including construction materials and labor costs. The cost can be reduced if cheaper materials are used.

Box 4.3.7 Pilot Activity/Project for Flood Countermeasures in the Agriculture and Livestock Sector AGRI-1: Shortening of paddy cultivation period by transplanting, and development of service providers for transplanting [Implementation ：Rice Grower, Support：RRC, DOAE] Shortening & harvesting before flood of paddy cultivation period by parachuting transplanting

method AGRI-2: Safe Vegetable Production and Opening of Green Marketing [Implementation：Vegetable Grower Group, Support：DOAE, LDD]

Crops diversification by vegetable productionand early earning of cash receipt after flood< Quick recovery> AGRI-3: Establishment of Forage Providing System in Emergency Case< Construction of Feed Storage>

[Implementation：TAO, Livestock Group, Support：DLD] Strengthening of Forage Supplying Ability when a disaster strikes by construction of Feed Storage in Community Level

4.3.4. Income Generation Activities Towards Recovery of Rural Livelihoods (1) Resiliency based on diversity in rural livelihoods and vulnerability to floods in intensification agriculture In rural areas, people are engaged in various livelihood activities utilizing available local resources to make their living. Although the major income source is sale of paddy from one or two harvests a year, farmers also have supplemental income sources and also obtain items through barter or exchange. It is recognized that smallholder farmers use diversification as a strategy to manage their livelihood. Especially in rain-fed agricultural areas, people dependent on rainfall and other forces of nature tend to focus on reducing risk, rather than maximizing benefit due to the uncertainties of nature. On the other hand, in paddy monoculture areas with well-developed irrigation facilities, farmers

JICA 4-52 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

concentrate on paddy cultivation to achieve maximum profit, selling the entire harvested to the rice mill without keeping any for their own consumption. It can be said, therefore, that livelihoods of farmers are vulnerable to disasters. Furthermore, diversity is decreasing in peri-urban areas, where non-farm activities are increasingly replacing agriculture as the main source of income. It is possible to increase income during and after floods by introducing new income generation activities, or by improving on current activities. Such efforts will contribute to the recovery of livelihoods and strengthen the resilience of rural communities, but at the same time will also have the added benefit of diversifying livelihood during normal times. The table below summarizes the key issues related to flood impact and income generation activities, as observed by JICA team members in the project areas.

Table 4.3.10 Natural and Social Environment, Issues on Flood and Income Generation Activities Area Natural and Social Issues on Flood Situation Remarks for Income Environment /Flood Prevention Projects Generation Activities Flood-Prone Area/ Resilience to flood Changes in amount of fish Expansion/improvement Upper Chao - Living with flood captured caused by flood of existing simple fish Phraya River Basin - Diversity of livelihoods prevention projects processing will be and natural resources (shorter/longer inundation by assisted on a small scale drainage/ water retention) Rice bowl/ Paddy Vulnerable to big flood - Proposed to use Consider impact on loss monoculture area - Less diversity of farmland in large-scale of livelihood / income of in the Delta livelihood and natural irrigation areas for landless farmers and resources water retention agricultural workers. - Existence of large - Limited cultivation in They may not participate landlords and many tenant flood risk period, less than in any community groups farmers, agricultural 2 paddy crops a year may and be excluded from workers who may be more have negative impact on support vulnerable livelihoods of tenant Fish processing during farmers and agricultural flood, salty eggs etc. in workers normal period Flood-Prone Areas Aging society - Long inundation period Select simple and easy in the Delta - Young generation work due to proposal to use activities, e.g. fish outside community, aging farmland as monkey cheek processing and handicraft of farmers areas at home, since aged people enjoy group activities Peri-urban areas Urbanization/ non-farmer 1. Protected area Near urban markets - Farm land being converted Least risk of flood Potential to invest in into housing estates higher value products - New residents/town (Use group activities as workers increasing, way of connecting with original residents/farm new residents) families decreasing Source: JICA Project Team

(2) Income Generation Activities, Food/ Agro-processing and OTOP as Flood Countermeasures The experience of pilot activities in model areas suggests that income generation activities have both direct and indirect benefits as flood countermeasures for community people. The direct benefit is to increase cash income for households. This has two functions; first, to reduce the negative impact to the household economy during the flood and second, to reduce the risk of future disasters by diversifying the source of income. In order to reduce the risk, these activities must be combined with other activities such as vegetable growing promotion. Indirect benefits are to relieve feelings of depression during floods and to strengthen relationships within the community. The positive impact

4-53 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report of income generation activities as flood countermeasures are summarized in the following figure.

Food processing / handicraft making

During flood After flood

Cash income generation Direct impact Supplements income losses caused by Quick recovery from disaster disaster Reduction of risk for disaster

Group activities

Indirect impact

Relieves depression caused by disaster Strengthening of group Figure 4.3.18 Direct and Indirect Impact of Flood Countermeasures

There are also limitations of income generation activities. When income generation activities are being proposed as flood countermeasures for a community, it is necessary to keep in mind the following points.  Income generation activities do not always grow into independent businesses even with support from Tambons or other governmental organizations, since there are many factors affecting whether the business succeeds or not. When communities introduce income generation activities, it is important to consider both direct and indirect impact of the activities.  In the case of food processing activities, in order to sell food products outside the community, certification by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is needed. For certification, investment to facilities and equipment might be necessary. To introduce a food processing activity, it is better to aim for a pre-GMP standard and to only sell in local markets.  Judging from experiences gained in the Project areas, food processing facilities damaged and contaminated by flood waters need to obtain FDA certification again. These damaged facilities may need external support for reinvesting in facilities and for developing capacity regarding hygiene controls at pre-GMP level.

(3) Sustaining Livelihoods during Long Inundation Periods One reason why even people in flood-prone areas, who are accustomed to floods, faced difficulties in 2011 is because the disruption to transportation and distribution channels for goods lasted longer than usual. Surveys conducted in this Project with processing and OTOP groups found that in addition to losses from innundation of their stock, incomes were also affected because finished products or raw materials could not be transported. Considering such difficulties, fish capturing is the most important income source during a flood. In flood-prone areas, it is said that a flood is not disaster but an opportunity to gain income by catching fish. Although the proportion of people relying on fish for their livelihood may normally be about 10 to 20 percent in a given community, during floods, the majority will gain cash income by catching fish, snakes, etc. The fish are sold to middlemen, or at the local markets or are traded within the community. Other traditional adaptations of income generation during floods is simple fish processing through sun drying, smoking, grilling and fermentation of fish products, both for household consumption and for sales of surplus. The three issues below are important to take into account for enhancing disasater-resilience and sustainable livelihood through fish capturing and processing;

JICA 4-54 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

1) It is necessary to consider the impact of construction of flood prevention structures on fish and fisherfolk in flood-prone areas.

2) The production capacity of existing simple processing methods can be enhanced so as to increase sales volume and expand the market to increase benefits to the community, and

3) In the newly assigned water retention areas, which have increased flood risk, it is recommended to introduce fish capturing and processing to compensate for the lost opportunity costs from farming. Marketing and sales of the produce can be supported by the provincial government.

Groups formed for food processing can also have a social function. Especially women and aged people often prefer to gather and work together even during flood periods. Bonds between group members are important for helping each other during long inundation periods, for example by asking after each others’ health and problems. Specifically in an aging society, it is important to nurture such ties or social capital in the community, which will result in enhanced resilience. Processing activities based on local resources available during floods are recommended, not only fish processing but also water hyacinth, for example. Approaches to be encouraged for processing activities during long-inundation periods are the use of local resources, simple processing, and processing that can be done at home.

(4) Role of External Support for Livelihood Recovery Communities starting income generation activities may benefit from linking up with the following governmental and non-governmental agencies/stakeholders.

Table 4.3.11 Related Agencies/Stakeholders for Income Generation Activities Name of agencies/stakeholders Possible support/cooperation 1 Department of Agricultural Extension ・ Registering a group as “Community Enterprise” (DOAE), Cooperative Promotion Department ・ Supporting establishment of cooperatives (CPD), Ministry of Agriculture and ・ Providing loan to Community Enterprise Cooperatives 2 Community Development Department (CDD), ・ Institutional support (formation of group) Ministry of Interior ・ Preparation of business plan ・ Linkage with other OTOP projects 3 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ・ Certification of food processing product 4 Department of Industrial Promotion (DIP), ・ Support for Community Product promotion and Ministry of Industry certification 5 Universities (Faculty of Agriculture etc.) ・ Technical support for quality improvement of product (production development, analysis, packaging and marketing) 6 Non Governmental Organization ・ Coordination between other agencies mentioned above and communities ・ Facilitate community needs assessment Source: JICA Project Team

Shown below are steps for establishing income generation activities in the community and key points to be considered by agencies and stakeholders.

4-55 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report Steps Key Points

1. Workshop(s) in community to assess the current situation ・ To check existing group/skill/local resources ・ To involve more stakeholders related to ↓ activity including NGO, govt. agencies etc. 2. Workshop to plan activities ・ To utilize local resources, existing ↓ group/skills as much as possible

3. Preparation of business plan ・ To involve government agencies such as ↓ CDD etc.

4. Improvement of technical knowledge and skill ・ To network with local experienced groups ↓ ・ To link with universities for technical support

5. Procurement of equipment and improvement of facilities ・ Procurement must be done based on a ↓ business plan.

6. Marketing ・ To link with existing marketing groups ・ To utilize local fair, market etc. Figure 4.3.19 Flow Income Generation Activities Source: JICA Project Team After floods, recovery strategies that include income generation activities involving processing will result in a faster recovery of livelihoods compared to a strategy that relies solely on farming. The following are points to keep in mind for external agencies supporting the promotion of income generation activities 1) Marketing is important for selling products outside the community. This is an area where external support is relevant and critical, since villagers lack relevant knowledge and experience. While government agencies organize OTOP events and tourism promotion fairs inviting OTOP and community groups free of charge, the private sector and individuals can provide effective support by internet and word-of-mouth marketing.

2) The recent trend has been for supporters of OTOP and community products to focus on improved packaging as a marketing strategy, thereby increasing costs. Considering the competitive market, such cost increases would further reduce the profit margin, which is already very small.

3) Government support tends to focus on group activities. However, it is also possible for individual and private entrepreneurs in communities to produce and sell the same product by hiring other group members. If the objective is the recovery of livelihoods, supporting such individual entrepreneurs to enhance production and sales will result in enhancing the livelihoods of a wider group of people, e.g. through employment and purchase of raw materials from community members.

4) There have been some cases in which different OTOP-related government agencies were not well coordinated in their support to groups. For instance they supported the same group with different approaches, confusing and dividing the group. This kind of external support can undermine the group’s initiative and will subsequently have a negative impact on the resilience of a community.

BOX 4.3.8 Model Program: Income Generation Activities Towards Recovery of Rural Livelihood iGEN-1: Income Generation utilizing Local Resources [Imple.Org.: Processing Group：Technical support: CDD, DOAE] Supplemental cash income from simple processing of local resources available in rainy season such as fish and water hyacinth

JICA 4-56 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

4.3.5. Networking and Institutional Support for Communities (1) Institutions and Organizational Arrangements at National Level As natural disasters seriously affect economic activities and people’s livelihoods, there are a number of agencies at national level responsible for the protection, mitigation, rescue, recovery and support for the general public. These include the National Security Council at the highest level under the cabinet and relevant sectoral ministries and departments. Since this project concerns floods in agricultural or rural areas, the discussion below will focus on institutions related with flood damage on crops and people’s livelihood in rural areas. DDPM and provincial and local governments under MOI and MOAC are the major agencies directly in charge of flood countermeasures. The Single Command Authority, including ONWFMP under OPM, is involved in large-scale water-related disaster management. It was established in May 2012 to remedy the weaknesses seen during the long-lasting 2011 flood. DDPM Under the current policies, local governments at various levels have large responsibilities. DDPM assigns provincial DPM officers for all 77 provinces to coordinate between the DDPM and provincial governments. MOAC MOAC is responsible for agricultural production development, resource management as well as the development and promotion of farmers, farmer groups and co-operatives. Under the MOAC, OAE is the key office for policy formulation and development planning, and was assigned as the counterpart agency for this project. As far as countermeasures for the flood damages are concerned, the Ministry took actions based on the MOAC’s Preparedness Plan for Agricultural Disaster in the Budgetary Year 2012 for the 2011 flood damages and the MOAC prepared a Manual for Aid to Disaster Victims in the Agricultural Sector. However, the ministry’s plan, based on the 2P2R concept of prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, deals mainly on preparation and actions to be taken by the government. It is not intended to be a guideline or plan for the rural community and people, to support them to take necessary actions against the flood disaster. Furthermore, the Manual mainly is mainly concerned with the urgent actions to be taken by MOAC and related agencies before, during and after the disaster, including the issue of compensation. However, the actions for strengthening the resilience of rural community and local people cover a wider scope, and thus it is necessary to have a highly collaborative organizational arrangement enabling effective cooperation among the agencies concerned. Single Command Authority The Single Command Authority includes NWFPC, WFMC and ONWFMP. The NWFPC is for policy making, WFMC is to take action following the policies given and the ONWFP is the secretariat for both national level committees. ONWFMP, as planned and approved by the cabinet, initiated an international bid to select a contractor for sustainable water resources management and flood mitigation project. The Authority as a whole is given exclusive powers for policy formulation, operational planning, implementation and trouble-shooting for flood and water management. Another important task of the Authority is to direct relevant government agencies to implement policies. However, this is at national level and actual actions in the field are to be taken by the relevant government agencies,

4-57 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report except in the case of large-scale water-related disasters. As such, the flood countermeasures and water resource management planning at the community level as discussed in this report are not within the scope of the Single Command Authority.

(2) Role of Provincial Line Agencies and Integration Tambon Disaster Resilient Plans are to be formulated and implemented mainly by Tambons, by using a participatory approach. In most cases, however, technical and budgetary support by provincial government is required for each step of the process. The provincial government will direct the high priority Tambons to formulate their plans. But what is important is that the actions in the plan are integrated, to maximize effectiveness as flood countermeasures. Therefore, one of the most important factors for promoting Tambons’ resilience to flood disasters is coordination among line agencies at provincial level and integration of planned actions. One practical approach is to set up a task force, headed by the provincial governor to support this process. The task force will assume the responsibility, 1) to prioritize Tambons in need of plan formulation depending on the flood risks as determined by data and information collected, and 2) to support Tambons’ actions in an integrated manner. The task force and the line agencies would also work together in supporting model activities requested by non-prioritized Tambons and farmers. There is no standard organizational structure specified by the relevant ministries for task forces of this nature. Figure 4.3.20 below shows the structure of the task force established for the current project in Ayutthaya Province. The task force was appointed during the implementation of the Project, but it plans to continue its work for post-JICA project monitoring, as well as to support and monitor replication of pilot activities.

Figure 4.3.20 Structure of Provincial Task Force (Example of Ayutthatya) Source: JICA Project Team

JICA 4-58 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

In fact, coordination among the line agencies at provincial level was assumed by the office of PACO, Ayutthaya. Line agencies include most of the MOAC departments with additions of DDPM and CDD under MOI. The JICA Team’s assessment is that coordination by PACO has been effective in ensuring participation of provincial officers assigned by line agencies, Tambon level officials and people concerned with the pilot project implementation.

Box.4.3.9 Lessons learned from provincial task forces organized for pilot project implementation The Task Force, during project implementation, carried out the following tasks; 1. Plan, monitor and make suggestions to the JICA Project Team on the implementation of pilot activities 2. Coordinate the implementation of community surveys and support meetings organized in pilot areas 3. Support the preparation of the Guidelines and consolidate lessons learned It is proposed that these Task Forces be maintained, in the future, to oversee flood countermeasure activities in the pilot area and in expansion activities to other flood risk areas of the province.

Lessons learned include: *Policies and initiatives of the provincial governors are key for the effectiveness of the task force. *Inter-Tambon coordination needs to be further enhanced.

(3) Organizations at Tambon level The organizations at Tambon level are; TAOs responsible for the Tambon Disaster Resilient Plan, representatives from each village, and groups and farmers has involved in various activities under the plan. Groups can include Community Enterprises and OTOP groups which are registered with government agencies although usually not incorporated, and more information social groups or voluntary associations.. The multitude of such Tambon groups and the strong bonds between members can enhance “bonding social capital,” whereas “bridging social capital” can help the community to strengthen its network with outside institutions. Both these types of social capital are considered important to enhance the resilience of the community or Tambon. Table 4.3.12 Main Actors for Model Projects/Activities Issues Model projects/activities Actors Supporting organizations at provincial level Community disaster 1)Preparation of hazard map TAO DDPM, RID, prevention and 2) Secure safe water TAO, Water Management Private companies management plan 3) Flood disaster Committee management plan TAO, Committee, School DDPM, Community water 4)Development of monkey- TAO RID resources management cheek projects 5) Inter-Tambon Micro TAOs RID，PAO/DOLA Watershed Development 6)Participatory flood water TAO, PDA RID, Universities management Countermeasures for 7)Transplanting of rice Individual farmers RRC mitigating/reducing 8)Safe vegetable production Marketing committee, Vegetable DOAE, LDD, Health flood damages in + Green market production group promotion foundation, agriculture and 9)Production and stockpiling Pasture/livestock group/TAO Universities livestock sectors feed for livestock DLD Securing income for 10)Processing by using local Processing group CDD, DOAE, restoring livelihood resources Rural enterprises, OTOP group Universities

4-59 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report The roles and responsibilities of TAOs in the agriculture sector are often not clear. As per the data and information disclosed by the DOLA, MOI, the national average revenue for a TAO is estimated at 7.47 million baht a year (in 2003) and the number of staff is 15 (6.5 permanent and 8.5 temporary status) (in 2006). The lessons learned at Tambon level through pilot project implementation are as follows. Planning  In most cases, a well-balanced combination of top-down and bottom-up planning process works efficiently. In this process, TAO is the interface, coordinating between policies of the provincial government office and the people’s needs. In plan formulation, TAO plays the facilitator role.  In order to secure positive cooperation from the local people, the selection of target sectors and allocation of budget needs to be made and presented with sufficient justifications. Especially when convincing people to prepare for future floods which may or may not occur, it is necessary to identify high priority areas based on past experiences and formulate strategic action plans in a participatory manner. For this process, external support is required. Implementation  For local people, implementation of activities is important. Some sub-contracted survey work by research institutes caused confusion because local people are not interested in research and survey. Without follow-up action, good cooperation cannot be expected.  To improve water management operations in one Tambon, it is necessary to seek collaboration and coordination among neighboring Tambons. RID and the provincial government offices can help facilitate such collaboration.  Most model activities are also useful for non-flood disasters. Study tours and training programs are useful for learning and adapting ideas depending on the issues prevailing in each locality. TAO budgets can be used for study tours and training programs for leaders of farmer groups in the Tambon, not only to learn individual techniques but to learn about flood countermeasures in a holistic way. Sustainability / Potential for future expansion  Post-project maintenance is the key to long-term sustainability and adoption of pilot projects in other Tambons. If income can be generated through the project, this creates a positive incentive for beneficiary farmers, and, at the same time, generates funds that can be used for operation and maintenance, contributing to project sustainability.  Farmers and group of farmers who were supported in this project by the provincial government agencies to implement model activities can be designated as “centers of learning”. Those interested from other Tambons can visit these learning centers to share experience. These centers may also function as the center for extension of good practices, for which continuous support from the provincial and local government offices should be made available.  For long-term sustainability, collaboration with schools in the locality is effective. Knowledge and good practices learned can be transferred not only to the next generation of school children but also to their parents.

JICA 4-60 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

(4) Inter-Tambon Organization Network and Cooperation with the Provincial Administrative Oragnization 1) Water and flood management by inter-tambon organization Since the area covered by water resource development as well as flooding is quite extensive, what can be achieved by one Tambon is quite limited. In addition, administrative boundaries and such boundaries as irrigation command areas and river catchment areas often differ from one another. Collaboration among neighboring Tambons is, therefore, required to address problems. The facilitation process for inter-Tambon networks includes:  Organize meetings among representatives of neighboring Tambons to identify common issues such as flood and drought.  Organize meetings with Provincial DOLA and PAO to explain the situation and request their supervision and coordination.  Organize a study visit to areas considered to have good practices (Ubonratchathani Province as example for water resources development) to learn about their successful experience of inter- Tambon cooperation  Prepare a plan for inter Tambon cooperation Moreover, in terms of the budget for project development, the available budget of one Tambon is usually too small for any substantial project. This requires collaboration among Tambons with similar projects, for which some supporting funding has recently become available from the PAO budget. Box. 4.3.10 Project on Enhancing the Capacity of Local Public Service Provision through Local Management Cooperation supported by Provincial Administrative Organization From February 2010 to February 2013 the Project on Enhancing the Capacity on Local Public Service Provision through Local Management Cooperation supported by the Provincial Administration Organization was implemented by DOLA, MOI with cooperation by JICA. Under the project, 3 pilot projects in 3 provinces listed below were implemented based on the MOUs signed aiming at enhancement of public services through local management cooperation by neighboring Tambons and Thesabans (municipalities). *Ang Thong Province Improvement of water environment (4 Thesabans and 5 Tambons along a canal) *Chachoengsao Province Tourism promotion (Map and sign board) (3 Thesabans and 2 Tambons with similar target) *Ubon Rachathani Province Small-scale water resource and farm ponds (9 Tambons in 1 Amphoe (district)) Of the above, the case of Ubon Rachathani indicates how the budget could be secured and TAOs could implement more water management projects with the limited budget. Major accomplishments by the pilot model are: *Subsidies for new construction of 1,374 (1,200 m3 capacity) farm ponds *Dredging for the existing ponds in 13 places for 463,004 m3 *Construction of 20 small-scale weirs *Installation of pipe irrigation covering 20,636 rai (1,592 farmer beneficiaries) *Securing of retention areas as countermeasures for flood and drought *Reduction of TAO’s load for time-consuming tender-related works *Working Manual was prepared by the provincial task force

According to data and information provided by DOLA, the average annual revenue per PAO is 282.9 million baht as of the year 2003. This is considered as one budget source for inter-Tambon collaboration projects including the replication of water management pilot projects covering several Tambons. The project experience in Ubon Ratchathani by DOLA and the PAO provide good lessons learned.

4-61 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report (5) Networking with Universities, Foundations, NGOs and Private Sector Experience from the good practice case studies (refer to Appendix I-D), shows that if a community already has linkages with outside institutions, not only government agencies but also universities, foundations, NGOs and the private sector, it is easier to get assistance when the community face flood –related disasters. Therefore, Tambons are recommended to implement activities that foster relationships involving technical or financial support with such institutions under Tambon Disaster Resilient Plan, so that the resilience of communities will be enhanced. The table below is summarized based on experience of pilot projects implementation, including sub- contract, good practice case studies, and interview survey, but it does not give a comprehensive list of institutions. Table 4.3.13 Institutes and their potential areas of collaboration Institute Scope/ Area Major Areas of Expertise/Collaboration Remarks University Engineering Expertise, theories, knowledge on irrigation, hydraulic Recommended to structures, water management, buildings and collaborate on social communication/IT technologies. Being neutral to Govt. science aspect like policies, can deal with new challenges too. relationship with communities etc. Agriculture Knowledge and information on cutting-edge research are For each type of farming Agro- available. Specialized in many fields and need of team work technology, it is necessary processing by assembling specialists. Highly specialized testing and to verify whether it is analysis are possible. Farmer training also covered. appropriate for farmers. Social Science Study and advice to respond to the community needs in the For the timing, the fields of social science and business administration are university schedule tends to available. After the project, the relationship with the be given priority. Also community can be continued as education programs. applies to the other Can be a reliable partner. faculties. Government Social science Program can be operated with external funding in addition to Need to review whether the institute field the government budget. Possible to get technical and program meets the Community financial assistance. Capable in coordination and negotiation community’s needs development with the government agencies. Accumulation of good field practices on program base and nationwide network.

Foundation Health Fund provision and support for program participation for the Possibility to have different promotion activities in line with their missions. There are programs to views from MOAC on the meet the model projects as discussed in the Guidelines like certificate for farm produce promotion of safe vegetable and green market. If provincial (GAP and organic) offices exist, collaboration at provincial level is easier. NGO Environment Mission-based activities. NGOs with missions on If the cost is borne by Thai conservation environmental conservation, climatic changes and rural government budget, NGOs development have participatory facilitation techniques and have to be registered experience in identifying good practices and local wisdom. officially as consultants. Collaboration with these NGOs are recommended. Such Technical content of NGO NGOs have networks with other rural communities, well- activities may need to be informed and knowledgeable persons so can be effective in verified by technical expanding community networks. experts. Private Manufacturer of Collaborative support can be expected with their interest in Specialists may need to be sector input materials developing new technologies and materials including field involved to determine and trial use which may create cause new opportunities for the feasibility. machineries business expansion. Industrial estate Example of supporting neighboring areas. As a part of Need for coordination welfare for factory workers, corporate social responsibility between the private (CSR) to build up good relationship with neighboring companies/industrial estate communities. Possibility to sale market for farm produces and rural communities. and processed foods. Religious Groups based on religions like Muslim. Supported disaster Careful attention on the organization damaged community by the own network covering nation- possible conflict with the wide. other religious group in same Tambon. Source：JICA Project Team

JICA 4-62 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

(6) Towards Collaboration among Stakeholders to Improve Resilience in the Agricultural Sector There is a need for collaboration among stakeholders of different sectors such as farmer’s groups, producers, universities, government offices and private companies. Collaboration across industrial sectors such as agriculture, manufacturing and commerce is increasingly common, globally and in Thailand. This kind of collaboration aims to increase effectiveness through combining knowledge and resources of each stakeholder. Exchange of opinions among stakeholders of different expertise and sectors may help to resolve difficult, long-standing issues. The figure below illustrates an example of such collaboration.

Basic infrastructure Showing know‐how Research PR

Technical Support Production increase Provision of material Employment increase

Product develop Development Corporation Analysis Research Technology

Figure 4.3.21 Structure and Roles in Stakeholder Collaboration

Based on Figure 4.3.23, government agencies should play two important roles; one of facilitating the overall collaboration for project management and the other of making available the research functions of various government institutes and laboratories. Under this project, an example of such collaboration was carried out for the recovery of the orchid sub-sector to find an alternative plant growing media for orchid nurseries which had been totally destroyed in 2011. Information on this project component and lessons learned are provided below as an example.

4-63 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

Box 4.3.10 Recovery of Orchid Production Sub‐sector by Collaboration of Industry, Government and Academia Under the pilot project, collaboration was pursued to find alternative orchid growing media materials and to lower production costs in order to replace the media materials which were totally damaged by the 2011 flood. The project component and the lessons learned from the implementation of pilot project are as follows.

‐Project outline (Field experiment) *Comparison of orchid growing media materials *Experiment on micro‐organisms *Application of mycorrhiza fungi

‐Stakeholders: (1) Kasetsart University (2) LDD, DOA, DOAE (3) Air Orchid & Lab (private sector), Farmer producers

‐Lessons learned

 Through combining new technologies already developed by different stakeholders, technology appropriate for farmers was identified  The collaboration helped to maintain motivation to sustain the project for both farmers and the private sector company.  It is difficult for farmers themselves to solve problems caused by global changes, but this kind of collaboration may help to find solutions.  For government research institutes, collaboration with other sectors is easier if external funding is available, while participation in using only the government’s regular budget is difficult.  Regular meetings to discuss and exchange opinions among stakeholders helps advance project activities, because ideas from different perspectives can often lead to innovations. Participation of members of industrial sectors and farmer producers help to keep the focus practical and to meet the actual needs.

*Stakeholders are often motivated by “green” activities that are good for the environment. *Collaboration may help find innovative ideas which may not have been proposed by a one single sector.

4.4. Conclusion and Recommendations 4.4.1. Conclusion The large flood in 2011 caused tremendous hardship for many people throughout the country. Based on this experience, people in the project’s model areas formulated the Disaster–Resilient Agriculture and Agricultural Community Plan at Tambon level. When implementing pilot activities for flood countermeasures, participants learned important lessons, which were captured in the form of a General Guideline and five Thematic Guidelines. Activities that were found to be effective flood countermeasures during pilot implementation have been written up as Model Programs to be promoted and expanded to other areas. The following are important and concrete recommendations aimed at enhancing disaster-resilience in agriculture and rural communities.

4.4.2. Recommendations (1) General 1) Recommendations to the Government of Thailand  The main recommendation is to implement these Guidelines, particularly in areas which will be

JICA 4-64 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

affected by the Government’s countermeasure project for flood mitigation, such as flood water retention areas. Where special budget allocation may be required, it is proposed that priority be given to high risk areas. For extension of the model activities, information and communication materials prepared by the Project such as leaflets, booklets and DVDs can be utilized.  MOAC is well-positioned not only to implement compensation program for flood damage, but also to inform departments under MOAC about the concept of strengthening resilience of agricultural communities.  Since “sufficiency economy” is a key concept in Thailand’s National Economic and Social Development Plan, it is also necessary to give more importance to the concept of “resilience in agriculture and agricultural communities”, in view of the risk of natural disasters, in addition to increased income and productivity through agricultural development.

2) Recommendations to provincial governments and TAOs  It is recommended that Disaster Resilient Agriculture and Agricultural Community Plans are formulated for all Tambons with high flood risk, and implemented as soon as possible.  Model projects should be reviewed to determine their suitability to the local conditions and possible expansion to other parts of the province.  In the plan formulation at Tambon level, some high priority emergency projects and parts of the learning process, such as study tours, should be implemented by TAO’s own budget in order to increase ownership of the project by the communities. As for countermeasures which require coordination in wider area than a single Tambon, requests for budget support can be submitted to PAO in collaboration with neighboring Tambons.

3) Recommendations to JICA  It is necessary to monitor whether and how these Guidelines are being used.  It is also necessary to follow-up on the implementation of the ongoing model projects.

(2) Recommendations by Sector 1) Community Based Disaster Risk Management  The methodology for participatory preparation of flood hazard maps is described in the Guidelines. For areas with high flood risk, hazard maps are required, and for this, collaboration with DDPM and RID is necessary. To ensure smooth coordination among these agencies, it is recommended to establish an implementation body at provincial level similar to the Provincial Task Force that includes the provincial DDPM and is led by the provincial governor.  The provision of small-scale water purification systems will enable communities to produce and stock drinking water to be used during floods. It is recommended that TAOs introduce such a system as a flood countermeasure.

2) Community Water Resources Management  The installation of water level gauges in Tambons will make it possible for communities to monitor water levels themselves. By comparing the local measurements with water level data from major RID stations using a web-based system, projections of water levels in the Tambon can be made, thus allowing for flood forecasting and early warning. In Tambons located within irrigation areas with

4-65 OAE The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report high flood risk, it is recommended that this participatory system is introduced.  With a monkey cheek system, flood water can be retained during the wet season and used for irrigation during the dry season. If each Tambon in the upstream basin area retained 2 MCM of flood water, a total of as much as 1,000 MCM could be retained, the equivalent of a large dam or reservoir, which would help prevent flooding downstream. Monkey cheek development in small river basins is in line with the government policy to promote development projects by inter-Tambon collaboration, so it is recommended that PAO supports this as the main promoting body.  SSIP has been implemented nationwide since 1977, with the total number of projects reaching more than 6,000 to date. The project consists mainly of construction of small infrastructure facilities such as weirs, regulators, farm ponds and small dams. These project facilities have been transferred to TAOs due to an administrative reform, but no longer function well due to deterioration and insufficient operation and maintenance. MOI is well-positioned to formulate plans to improve these SSIP facilities to function as monkey cheeks, as well as to support the TAOs to rehabilitate and expand the SSIP facilities with cooperation from RID.

3) Flood Countermeasures in the Agriculture and Livestock Sector  In order to promote transplanting as a countermeasure to flood damage, an urgent issue is to increase the number of service providers for the transplanting method of parachuting. Either RRCs stationed in each province or DOAE under MOAC is expected to develop service providers. For this, the government agencies concerned should provide necessary training not only on transplanting techniques but also on other technical issues such as seedling preparation, reduction of seeds input and seed selection methods. The production of safe vegetables is actively promoted under the MOAC policy, but roles and responsibilities of various government agencies are not clearly defined for the important activity of securing reliable markets for sale. To address this issue, the recommendation is for TAOs and farmer producers to establish green markets in cooperation with foundations and universities and also to expand sales to schools and hospitals with support from the provincial government. DOAE and LDD are jointly expected to provide necessary support for farmer producers on production-related matters.  In areas with high risk of flood and with many small-scale livestock farmers, animal feed should be stocked at both household and community levels as a precaution against future floods. Furthermore, cultivation of fodder crops in these areas should be promoted. It is recommended that DLD fully brief all officers in charge at provincial and district (Amphoe) levels to provide required support for livestock groups working to set up community fodder storage facilities.  The activities proposed above are to be promoted not only when there is flooding but also in periods without floods. These recommendations are in line with government policies, and can therefore be supported through the regular government budget in areas with high flood risk. In other words, such activities can be implemented without special budget support for flood countermeasures. Extension work for farmers is necessary, and these Guidelines can be used to ensure that the measures proposed are effective flood countermeasures.

4) Income generation for recovery of livelihood  Fish capture is an important activity in areas often affected by flood, and it is recommended that the Government conducts a survey on fish resources as well as impact on local farmers before implementing any flood countermeasure projects.

JICA 4-66 The Project for Flood Countermeasures for Thailand Agricultural Sector Final Report

 A new policy has been introduced to apply stricter standards in the food processing industry. It is, however, doubtful that the required investment needed to obtain certification will result in sufficient return for rural enterprises and OTOP groups to make it worthwhile. In addition to setting up standards for safety, government agencies concerned, such as DOAE and CDD, are requested to provide necessary guidelines for quality improvement, as well as training programs about hygiene issues for community members. Further, some financial support is also necessary for certification, although compensation for the processing facilities damaged by the 2011 flood disaster has not been provided. It is necessary for the Thai Government to introduce policies to bridge the gap between the capacity of OTOP groups and rural small enterprises and the stricter quality standards enforced.

5) Institutions and other issues  It is recommended that provincial governments support TAOs so that the PAO budget may be available for TAO projects, not only for water resources development but also for flood countermeasures when they are implemented in collaboration with other Tambons.  While communities themselves make efforts to enhance their resilience against flood disasters by applying the Guidelines, the government should ensure a system for rapid flood disaster assessment and appropriate valuation for victims in water retention areas designated by the government to save urban areas from flooding.  Under the pilot projects implemented, a GIS land parcel database was established to accelerate and ensure compensation payments to farmers as a pilot project. It is recommended that the Office of Agricultural Economics continue the work on similar practical application of the database as listed below.  Remote sensing technologies to analyze satellite images on rice growing stages  Acceleration and standardization of data collection procedure for practical database construction at Tambon level  Outsourcing of work to institutes and private companies in order to expand the system nationwide

4-67 OAE